Most Americans think they drink milk on a regular basis. In fact, virtually all these people are consuming pasteurized milk, not milk. Milk in its natural state – raw milk – is consumed by very few Americans, because it is illegal in many states and thoroughly discouraged by federal health organizations, regulators, and the Big Dairy lobby.
Raw milk is prohibited in Canada and Australia, although raw milk and raw-milk products are legal almost everywhere else. In fact, in countries with the best cuisines, such as France, raw milk and raw-milk products are considered the high-quality choice.
With the current controversy surrounding the government crackdown on wholesome, organic, and locally produced milk, it is important to understand the products we are being pushed toward, as well as those we are being pushed away from. While the benefits of organic and raw milk is largely undeniable when compared to the industrially produced substitute, the dangers of the latter are not discussed quite as frequently. Of these dangers, rBGH is a central figure.
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (also known as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin) is a genetically engineered hormone that is injected into cows for the purpose of increasing milk production. It is derived from bovine somatotropin (bST) which is a hormone that is produced naturally in the cattle by the pituitary gland. This hormone is very important for growth and development, as well as other functions of the animal’s body.
Sometime in the 1930s it was discovered that injecting cattle with bST increased milk production. However, because bST is produced in the animal itself, the only source available was in the pituitary glands of the slaughtered cattle. Genetic engineering thus came into play.
Eminent Domain has been used throughout the nation to employ a technique whereby the State can request the sacrifice of personal property in the name of "the greater good." Generally there has been some semblance of attempting to hide the collectivist nature of Eminent Domain by properly compensating landowners for their loss. However, a small town in New Jersey sets the stage for a new form of Eminent Domain where private land can be seized -- in perpetuity -- with zero compensation. Under the guise of environmentalism, the town of Kingwood is a prime example of a Communist-style land grab which is at the heart of a global move toward the restriction of personal property rights.
A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.
The product in question: unpasteurized milk.
It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.
“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” said Tamara N. Ward, spokeswoman for the FDA, whose investigators have been looking into Rainbow Acres for months, and who finally last week filed a 10-page complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking an order to stop the farm from shipping across state lines any more raw milk or dairy products made from it.
The farm’s owner, Dan Allgyer, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, but his customers in the District of Columbia and Maryland were furious at what they said was government overreach.
“I look at this as the FDA is in cahoots with the large milk producers,” said Karin Edgett, a D.C. resident who buys directly from Rainbow Acres. “I don’t want the FDA and my tax dollars to go to shut down a farm that hasn’t had any complaints against it. They’re producing good food, and the consumers are extremely happy with it.”
The FDA’s actions stand in contrast to other areas where the Obama administration has said it will take a hands-off approach to violations of the law, including the use of medical marijuana in states that have approved it, and illegal-immigrant students and youths, whom the administration said recently will not be targets of their enforcement efforts.
Raw-milk devotees say pasteurization, the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms, eliminates good bacteria as well, and changes the taste and health benefits of the milk. Many raw-milk drinkers say they feel much healthier after changing over to it, and insist they should have the freedom of choice regarding their food.
One defense group says there are as many as 10 million raw-milk consumers in the country. Sales are perfectly legal in 10 states but illegal in 11 states and the District, with the other states having varying restrictions on purchase or consumption.
Many food safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no health benefit from raw milk that cannot be obtained from pasteurized milk.
One year ago, U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could feel confident they controlled the news content they created.
It was understood that competing and special-interest websites couldn't appropriate that content and post it without authorization.
When such infringements occurred, they were dealt with swiftly and effectively with a simple phone call or email.
Infringing websites typically had re-posted material out of ignorance they were violating the Copyright Act and agreed to remove the material or replace it with a link to the source newspaper or broadcaster.
Then along came Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas, the self-appointed protector of the newspaper industry from such news sharers.
Washington (CNN) -- Don't like the way airport screeners are doing their job? You might not want to complain too much while standing in line.
Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, CNN has learned exclusively. And, when combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny.
CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 "behavioral indicators" that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially "high risk" passengers at the nation's airports.
Many of the indicators, as characterized in open government reports, are behaviors and appearances that may be indicative of stress, fear or deception. None of them, as the TSA has long said, refer to or suggest race, religion or ethnicity.
But one addresses passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes.
It reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."
Those latex gloves Transportation Security Administration agents wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs apparently aren't there for the safety and security of passengers – only the TSA agents.
That's the word being discussed on dozens of online forums and postings after it was noted that the agents wear the same gloves to pat down dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passengers, not changing them even though the Centers for Disease Control in its online writings has emphasized the important of clean hands to prevent the exchange of loathsome afflictions.
"Herpes via latex glove ... ewwww," wrote one participant on the independence-minded AR15 website forum.
Responding to the question, "Does the TSA change latex gloves after each sexual assault?" another wrote on the same forum, "I seriously doubt it. Gloves are for their protection, not yours."
In fact, TSA officials in both national and regional offices declined to respond to WND inquiries about the policy for changing gloves to prevent an infection that may be on the clothes or body of one passenger during a pat-down by TSA agents from being transmitted to other passengers, including children, in line.
Documents submitted to a court are supposed to be true as submitted. As an attorney, if I file with a court a document in which I swore that I personally verified the information contained within the document is true, but I didn't actually do that, I'd get in real trouble. It's simple: That's fraud in the eyes of the court.
GMAC, JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and One West Bank employees routinely sign hundreds of documents without verifying what they're signing. Those documents are then submitted to courts as if the documents were true, to enable the banks to foreclose on delinquent properties. Wells Fargo (WFC) and Citigroup's (C) CitiMortgage told The New York Times their employees do not engage in similar practices. Yet, new evidence I've found shows they have. At deadline, I was still awaiting a response from CitMortgage.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights are still in force - at least for now. The court was considering a handgun law in Chicago that was very similar to the DC law that it ruled
against in 2008. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike any other gun
control measures currently in place, but it provides a legal basis for
challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has
been too restrictive. Although most gun owners may be happy today, the court did NOT declare what the second amendment actually states! The victory is hallow, but still important, in that it forestalls the continual dissolution of the people's rights to bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." That's what it says! The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed! Sounds pretty simple, but the court hasn't, even in this decision, adhered the the words and meaning of the second amendment. They still allow background checks, and other constitutionally illegal restrictions on the rights of the people to bear arms.
"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear
arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered
liberty," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the
court. Ironically, Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances
but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in
A legal brief filed in a federal
court dispute over the purchase and use of raw milk contends the
court ultimately will determine "whether the people control the government, or whether the government
controls the people."
"The decision of this court will either ensure that people have
fundamental rights endowed to them by their Creator, or that the people
have no rights except those that are conferred upon them by government,"
attorneys for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
have argued in their newest brief, which opposes the government's
demand that the case be dismissed.
"Our research shows that this nation has a long history of
consuming raw dairy products and
that FDA's prohibition against taking raw dairy for human consumption
across state lines runs counter to that national history," said fund
President Pete Kennedy.
The brief argues, contrary to allegations by the FDA, everyone has
the right to travel across state lines with raw dairy products in their
possession, everyone has the right to consume the foods of their choice,
that parents have the right to feed their children the foods of their
choice, and that all have the right to be responsible for their own
Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., is accused of using legislative trickery to push
through health-care reform.
America's system of government based on the U.S. Constitution is
being overthrown through illegal legislative "trickery" Congress is
using to pass controversial health-care reform.
That's the conclusion of some on the political right who are
calling for the impeachment of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi along
with the defeat of the health legislation.
"This is the overthrow of the U.S. constitutional system,
orchestrated from the White House through the House of Representatives,
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid," said
radio host Rush Limbaugh today. "This is beyond rational
explanation and description. This makes Watergate look like Romper
At issue is the possibility that reforms pushed by President
Obama and other Democrats will be approved without ever actually having a
direct vote, but could be "deemed" to have been passed, then signed
into law by Obama. The process is called the "Slaughter
Strategy," named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the
House Rules Committee.
the need for this procedure, Pelosi
said: "I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate
Indeed, Democrats could actually vote for the rule, yet still
claim they're against the Senate bill.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gun control advocates think, if not pray, they can
win by losing when the Supreme Court decides whether the constitutional
right to possess guns serves as a check on state and local regulation
The justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment - like much
of the rest of the Bill of Rights - applies to states as well as the
federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.
But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its
suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard
Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are
By Claude R. Marx Reversing a 20-year old precedent, the U.S.
Supreme Court today ruled that corporations and unions can use money
from their general treasuries to make campaign contributions.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that those
organizations can use those funds to make independent expenditures not
associated with a campaign but can’t make direct contributions to a
The case was brought by the conservative group
Citizens United, which challenged restrictions on its ability to air a
90-minute film that was critical of the candidacy of then-Hillary
Rodham Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. It centered on
the issue of whether the restrictions on political expenditures by
corporations and unions resulted in stifling free speech.
“The censorship we now confront is vast in its
reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. He also
concluded that “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.”
justices also struck down provisions of a landmark campaign finance law
which banned certain advertisements during the final days of the
The ruling does not
affect the activities of political action committees, such as those set
up by CUNA and NAFCU, which are funded from voluntary contributions,
not the treasuries of organizations.
In writing the minority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”
The case is Citizens United vs. Federal Election
Commission. To read the opinion and dissent go to:
Lawmakers in New Hampshire are toying with the idea of demanding annual tests and portfolios
as well as vast new score-reporting requirements for every homeschooler
in a plan described as the "most anti-homeschool legislation ever
conceived" in the state. But the Home School Legal Defense Association is encouraging constituents to speak out against the plan pending in the state lawmaking body.
Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14
that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of
an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.
Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a
nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a
timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N.
conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security
concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective
action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in
a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong
international standard in this area."
Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a
dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international
governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into
effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.
for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle
Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News
program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really
just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but
there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the
real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups
talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international
trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question
of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of
these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application.
So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that
domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda." MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While battling the FBI's expanded surveillance guidelines, Sen. Russ
Feingold, D-Wis., also revealed (Daily Kos, Oct. 8) that in the Senate
Judiciary Committee review of the Patriot Act (also Oct. 8),
Republicans protecting the Act were joined, in a closed-door classified
session, by Obama officials with amendments further preserving it.
Then, in a public session, all but three Democrats voted for a
watered-down "compromise" bill by Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein.
Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and new Democrat Arlen Specter
(Pa.) had the constitutional courage to oppose the Judiciary Committee
bill eventually going to the floor that with few exceptions, leaves the
Patriot Act intact. I'll be reporting on the crucial fight to bring the
Bill of Rights back into the Patriot Act as Senate and House versions
merge into a law to be signed by Obama as he continues the Bush-Cheney
It was Feingold who, in October 2001, was the only member of
the Senate to vote against the original Patriot Act as, on the floor,
he accurately predicted our greatly weakened privacy, due process and
other rights since then.
He is not giving up. "In the end," Feingold says. "Democrats
have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the
American people" or (for recent example) "allow the FBI to write our