Veterans for Ron Paul March for Liberty

Feb 21st, 2012
by Admin.
No comments yet

“Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with All Nations-Entangling Alliances with None”

Thomas Jefferson

YouTube Preview Image

Veterans for Ron Paul filled the streets of Washington D.C. on President’s Day, February 20th, 2012, in support of the Constitution and a Constitutional Foreign policy, and in memory of the men and women who gave their lives in defense of liberty over the past 11 years.

With close to 9000 Military deaths, over 40,000 injuries, many more thousands suffering through PTSD, and thousands more in innocent civilian deaths (Americans and Foreign citizens), Adam Kokesh, Nathan Cox, and other Veterans took it upon themselves to bring attention to the crisis we are facing. 

A prayer and moment of silence, along with a salute opposite to the face of the White House, at the length of a second for every soldier that has died due to War and war-related illness under the Obama Administration, occurred and was carried out by the 600+ Active Duty/Retired/Reserve Veterans.

Close to, if not over a thousand, Constitution/Ron Paul/ Peace/ Free Market supporters also filled the streets in support of the troops and the message they not only fought for, but were marching for and conveyed with their passion. Shouts and passionate speeches were given on topics including bringing the troops home, restoring a Constitutional foreign policy and the Constitution in general, ending the Federal Reserve, legalizing sound money, and restoring personal liberty and authority to the people.

“Perhaps it is Universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad” 

-James Madison 

Watching and listening to the march, many Veterans could be heard discussing the issue of “Protecting Liberty” and the issue of returning home with less rights than when duty began. This of course, has been carried out through a slow, but efficient and steady erosion of rights through fear and authority, and in the name of safety.

What the demagogues and politicians haven’t mentioned is:

  • The military and domestic experts putting massive amounts of effort into drawing the attention of the American people to the 900+ bases we have oversees
  •  The trillions of dollars of Unconstitutional Federal Reserve fiat currency we have spent and stolen from the value of every American’s savings and property and spent on Unconstitutional wars
  • The false idea that liberty can be traded for security without the growth of tyranny
  • The effect endless wars have on the strength of our defense

Experts such as CIA Bin Laden Chief Michael Scheuer (who endorsed Ron Paul and his foreign policy) have explained time and time again that interventionism abroad only radicalizes more people, leads to more deaths of US Military and innocent civilians, and leads us into a cycle of perpetual warfare where Americans are forced to give up their money, their liberty, their children, and the sovereignty of the nation. 

YouTube Preview Image

SMALL list of examples of the loss of rights over the years due to Interventionism abroad and domestically:

-The Ratification and renewal of the Patriot Act, which allows for warrant-less spying and intrusion, against the Fourth Amendment, and the criminalization of speech, against the 1st Amendment

-The ratification of the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the Government the ability to arrest Americans without trial, indefinitely, against the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution.

-Constant unconstitutional wars that allow for “emergency executive powers” that come from an endless list that is supposedly above the Constitution and law of the land, resulting in “executive order” presidencies. President Obama has now signed over 111 executive orders, bypassing the House of Representatives –> Senate –> President route, outlined in the founding documents to avoid tyranny

-SOPA, ACTA, HR 1981, and similar “Censor the Internet” bills that violate the 1st Amendment, criminalize free speech, and deliver inordinate amounts of power to the State

-Bailouts, Inflation tax, other attacks on economic liberty by the Federal Reserve system, which delivers freshly printed dollars to foreign banks and crony capitalists (not REAL Capitalists) by stealing the value of dollars in the savings accounts, retirement accounts, and wallets of the lower class, middle class, and upper class.

And that list will only grow for as long as we choose to stay silent to the violations of liberty natural to every individual around the world, and announced in the Constitution, and championed by the Veterans who carried out Monday’s march on the White House.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Today we see that the road to Tyranny is paved with delusions of grandeur” 

-Ron Paul [LIBERTY DEFINED]

The irony in all of these bills and issues is that Unconstitutional measures were embarked upon in the name of protecting the Constitution, the sacrifices of liberty were in the name of safety; the economic measures were in the name of fairness and to prevent depression; the wars were fought under the lie that non-interventionism has resulted in the growth of aggressive, immoral, and evil radicals, who hate our freedom, when in-fact it was the isolationist policies of sanctions and preemptive war,  although the solution that was posed was the preemptive takeover of rights.

“If goods do not cross borders, armies will” -Frederic Bastiat

And yet, when we compare our current situation to the past, the severity of all of these issues has only increased, along with the period required to recover.

The promise of wealth and prosperity without production, the promise of safety at the loss of liberty, the promise of peace through war,  are the delusions Congressman Paul mentions above and those that have been mentioned throughout history. They are the delusions that have in-fact led us down the path of 1984, and the path in the opposite direction of the intentions of the American people. 

How can we say we support the Constitution and Capitalism, when our currency is allowed to be printed beyond any reasonable means, and the violations towards our social and economic liberty are carried out without consent or respect? 

How can we say we support the troops, when Ron Paul has received the support of the troops by OVER DOUBLE all of his opponents for Presidency of the United States in 2012 COMBINED, INCLUDING Obama: Who Do the Veterans Support?

Is it not time we put HUMAN ACTION behind our vocal promises and support through petition, speech, and protest? Isn’t it time we gave a damn about our rights, our country, and the world we live in and the Soldiers and Individuals who have gave their lives in support? Isn’t it time Americans stood up for America, and the principles it was founded on, and stood by a man who has championed these principles for decades? 

The Veterans seem to think it is, and I agree. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Constitution, Foreign Policy.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

When Interstate Commerce becomes Intrastate Commerce

Feb 15th, 2012
by Admin.
No comments yet

The Food and Drug Administration has succeeded in a case against an Amish Raw Milk farm in Pennsylvania on charges of SELLING MILK to cow share owners across state lines. 

These share owners were surprised when their investment in a cow and return of products from the farm, including raw or fresh milk, resulted in a 5AM raid on Mr. Daniel Allgyer’s  farm. The legal mess the FDA has caused has resulted in the shutdown of the farm by Allgyer, and the enragement of many customers over what seems like a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and interpretation of the Constitution.

As one customer of  Mr. Allgyer’s farm put it to the Washington Times, “I can’t believe in 2012 the Federal Government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food…”

This authority to control what people eat and put in their own bodies was perpetuated by the decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to expand on the Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution Interstate Commerce Clause to include Intrastate commerce. The justification for this was of course based on ridiculous reasoning, that because intrastate commerce was related to interstate commerce, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution intended to give the authority to include it.

Interstate Commerce Defined:

Trade or transportation between respective States

Intrastate Commerce Defined: 

Trade or transportation between citizens of a State or within a State.

Of course, many Constitutional experts would argue that the Interstate Commerce Clause was also actually intended to facilitate trade between states and limit the State Governments from infringing on the rights of the people to trade and form contracts.

Today, as in the case of the aforementioned Amish raw milk farmer and others,  it is used to restrict trade, impose harmful regulations and fees, and impose rules and restrictions on the freedom of the individual to make decisions for themselves. This does include any individual mandate to require individuals to purchase products.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes”

-Thomas Jefferson

As you can probably imagine, this false assumption that the Founders, who were rebelling against ridiculous tariffs, taxes, and laws (orders), would deliver the authority over all trade to the single Federal Government, instead of the citizens and respective 50 states, is illogical.

This interventionist policy in the economy is damaging; it discourages trade between citizens, it discourages investment, and it reduces the competitive practice that naturally restricts aggressive monopolies and encourages good business practice and innovation. 

One very important issue that also arises out of this ordeal is the issue of ownership of your body. I constantly bring this up because in many ways, property and rights are related and connected. In my opinion, ownership of your body dictates that you should have the choice of what foods to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, and other decisions of consumption.

If the FDA or other organizations and departments continue to make decisions of personal consumption for people, it sets the precedent that ownership of your own body is subject to debate. If you are not allowed to decide something as simple as what to eat, do you expect the same authority will be leaniant with what you decide to do with your money, your time, your family, etc…?

FOOD for thought.  

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Civil liberties and Rights Related, Constitution, Farming Related, Raw Milk.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · ·

Government Recommended Diet Goes Wrong

Feb 10th, 2012
by Admin.
1 comment

What happens when the Government Recommended Diet clashes with another Government dietary recommendation? Statism you say? 

The Center for Disease Control recently released a report headlining with the statistic, “90% of Americans eat more sodium than is recommended for a healthy diet” [Source].

From the summary at the CDC website, the report highlights the growing problem of sodium in the American diet, and explains how some of the most common and unexpected foods can have large amounts of sodium. Excessive levels of sodium in the diet have been shown to correlate with increased blood pressure and increased levels of risk for heart disease.

What’s interesting in the report is something that Mike Stobbe, an AP Medical writer, highlights HERE,  that grains are the number one source of salt in the American diet.  The officials were surprised at the short list of foods that contributed to the massive amounts of sodium that we consume and probably the presence grain and carbohydrate-dominated foods had on the list.

It gets even more interesting when you realize that because of this report, the USDA and related organizations are heightening their advisory of lowering daily sodium levels, but not advising lowering amounts of grain consumed.

The United States Department of Agriculture has harped its Government Recommended Diet (the Food Guide Pyramid) 6-11 servings of grains a day for every individual for over two decades. Grains form the base of the food guide pyramid, and have been at the top of the majority of educator’s and nutritionist’s “recommended grocery foods” based off the pyramid and the research behind it.  From my own personal experience in a University nutrition program, I can say that grains are still being pushed and recognized as a healthy food group.

But now, with sodium consumption growing and the take over of healthcare by lawmakers, an interesting decision will have to be made. How will lawmakers push anti-sodium campaigns, in efforts to gain more power over the choice of foods for daily Americans, while still recommending Americans consume grains, the food responsible for the highest percentage of American sodium consumption? 

YouTube Preview Image

[Sean Croxton, Author Of The Dark Side of Fat Loss (GREAT read) and founder of Underground Wellness]

To me, this perfectly exemplifies the problem with Government recommendations and Government intervention;  it results in decisions based off of lobbyists.  It presents the problem of choosing between the better product, or the better idea, and the product with more opportunity for a power grab, or the product with the biggest lobbyist behind it.

 The relationship between lawmakers and Agricultural companies has long influenced the recommendations that come out of many state organizations and most certainly has an effect on the foods that populate the school system and the variety of fast food “eat healthy” campaigns.

And looking at the state of the private food industry, and the problems many health-conscious individuals have with the selection, we can see that many of the same food manufacturers that populate the shelves at the grocery store, populate the bills and meetings with senators and representatives in support of regulation and in support of new agricultural and food related agencies. 

Eliminating this interventionism based policy in the market would restore the natural order of the free market, which is a better “regulator” than the State.  If health-conscious people think a company has bad practice or just makes unhealthy foods, they have the opportunity to support organic stores and other markets willing to satisfy them. New markets inspire new research in the private sector, and technological and scientific growth lead to more growth in the respective industry.

And if eventually the majority of a market does not support a company, that company is faced to change its policies, to restructure, or face bankruptcy. New companies are born out of the economic relationship between demand and supply. What better regulator is there than the free market, which rewards companies who satisfy the consumers with growth, and gives the opportunity to failing companies to change, or continue down the same path?

The only “regulation” this interventionism and current system of crony capitalism (NOT Capitalism) applies is rewarding losers with big lobbyist campaigns with bailouts and subsidies, and punishing small and big business winners with pages of lawyer rhetoric, excessive fines, and high taxes. And this Government Recommended Diet problem is just an example of why it’s the Government that needs to go on a diet, and let individuals make their own food related decisions. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Diet, Hydration, and Nutrition, Fat Loss, Free Market, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Regulating Sugar or Restoring Responsibility

Feb 2nd, 2012
by Admin.
2 comments

Regulating sugar like Tobacco and Alcohol is becoming a valid issue in the 2012 election with Researchers out of California claiming that sugar is “Toxic” and among other things, is bad for you. 

 I agree that sugar is bad for me.

These researchers then blindly go from the position of claiming that sugar is bad for you, to claiming that sugar should be regulated by the Government.

I disagree that my position or the scientific position of the healthiness of sugar should influence whether or not people are allowed to choose what they put in their own bodies.

[Fox News discusses regulating sugar, one host gets pretty agitated and passionate, mentions Ron Paul if you want food freedom]

The idea that we should research and educate on what we think is unhealthy or healthy is fine. I completely support it. Research and education are key in understanding the human body and how the foods we eat and we create interact with the body.

Especially with sugar, where in the case of these researchers, the claim is that Americans consume around 450 calories, or 112.5 grams, of sugar a day.  Sugar consumption in the US has climbed, along with imports of sugar to the US.

Correlating with the increase in high fructose corn syrup consumption (a form of sugar), we’ve seen increases in obesity, disease, and daily consumption of calories. 

High Fructose Corn Syrup consumption has gone from .1 servings a day in 1970, to 10.3 servings a day in 2010, for each American. A serving of sugar has consistently been considered  4 grams [Source: Table 52]

Correlation is not causation, but this at-least points in one direction we should be taking a serious look at. I personally subscribe to the Primal theory best explined by Mark Sisson and Robb Wolf. Briefly, it’s the idea that our excessive consumption of carbohydrates as a whole (where sugar is included) has resulted in a decrease in the consumption of quality nutrient filled foods-ones that deliver proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals-and has resulted in insulin resistance-the resistance of liver and muscle cells t0 insulin and the resulting storage of sugar as fat.

This issue also goes deeper than the nutritional opinions and interpretations of years of research because it has to deal with making decisions for others in a situation where another’s decision doesn’t necessarily affect everyone else’s rights. 

I’ve demonstrated my dislike for massive consumption of sugar and grains on this blog, while also praising protein and fat. But, I refuse to say that just because I do not have the will power to eat healthy all the time and maybe I don’t reach my health-related goals, I and other individuals who may share this problem should use the Government to impose a sugar ban or something related on everyone else. 

This is where “Restoring Responsibility” comes in, and also where I think the Fox News Host from above was getting at with the Ron Paul mention. Despite the other Fox’s host attempt at discrediting his co-worker by shouting “freedom to be fat and eat sugar”, that freedom is the same freedom to be fit and eat fruits, proteins, or fats. 

Freedom may be somewhat of a double-edged sword, but to give the authority to the Government to ban an “unhealthy” food, is to give the authority to the Government to ban a “healthy” food. And just because the current or past holders of authority may not abuse that power (I disagree), are those individuals for bans willing to predict and guarantee all future holders of that authority will not abuse it?

The right idea here was what the researchers were doing first. Research the issue, form an opinion, use that opinion to give examples and argue with competing ideas, and let the public as individuals decide how to react. Don’t take the shady route and cower to the fear that the public will discredit you and your idea. Do not cower and instead of making a better approach or prodct use Government to make your product the winner, while other hard working businesses and citizens in need of good information and good products suffer. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Civil liberties and Rights Related, Diet, Hydration, and Nutrition, Fat Loss, Free Market, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Consent Theory and A New Hampshire Bill to Outlaw Fluoride in Water

Jan 25th, 2012
by Admin.
1 comment

Representative Anne Cartwright of New Hampshire has introduced HB 1416, a bill that would indirectly prohibit fluoride in water, among other substances. Further explained by the bill’s summary:

“This bill prohibits the introduction of any substance into the public water supply of New Hampshire unless it is required by the department of environmental services to make the water potable.”

Currently the majority of the public water supply within the United States and much of Canada is fluoridated, whereas Europe has uniformly said no to fluoridation. The goal behind water fluoridation is the reduction of tooth decay, based on research the health and science communities have conducted over the past few decades and back before 1951, when the policy of water fluoridation was instituted.

The controversy around water fluoridation exists for a few different reasons. For one, water fluoridation is technically a form of public medication, especially for the many people who cannot afford to buy bottled water or central filters. The idea that we should mass-fluoridate the water supply, and the population, goes against any logical progression I’ve seen before in Medicine. Isn’t it generally accepted by the professional Medical community that pharmaceutical treatment comes after you identify the problem in the individual?

Since when is it considered intelligent to take a medicine, and not appropriate a specific dosage, but insert it in the water supply, where individual consumption and individual reaction can be so varied and can’t be tracked (this isn’t an argument to start tracking people either)?

Another problem with water fluoridation is Consent Theory, simply the theory that authority should need the consent of an individual before imposing that authority within reasonable boundaries, as in not with murder, but with taxes.  The argument here is, using taxes as a very simple example, if you are required to give a portion of your salary up, and that portion can become as small as it needs or as large as it needs without your consent, your salary really isn’t your property. If you voluntarily gave up a percentage of your taxes every year, maybe basing it around a Government Recommend-Only model, that would imply you have ownership over the reward for the hard work you did. Various opt in and opt out options on policies would fix a large portion of the problems around this issue, but it applies to water fluoridation in that this wasn’t a measure passed with applause, but was rather seen as for the public’s benefit, whether they know it or not, and whether they agree with it or not.

Consent is especially important when taking into consideration that there is not just research for water fluoridation, but also against. And organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network, and many individual people, see fluoride research differently than others in that there are possible negatives with fluoride consumption, and much of the research referred to by those in opposition, to justify those claims, can be found HERE.

Consent Theory is also a close cousin of the Non Aggression Principle: 

YouTube Preview Image

Understanding Consent Theory and the Non Aggression Principle isn’t necessary to understand why Representative  Anne Cartwright would introduce this bill, but it is useful to understand why bills like this, which are essentially pro-liberty, should be passed and why representatives should introduce bills like this.

Of course, it wouldn’t be fair to only mention the opposition to fluoride’s argument, but also those in support, which included a long list of agencies and coalitions such as the NH Dental Association, NH Public Health Association, NH Oral Health Coalition, NH Department of Health and Human Services, and many others. 

The main basis of the argument of the associations and agencies and coalitions was that fluoride reduces tooth decay, and there are many studies out there that agree with this, and that mass-fluoridation saves the public a small amount of money by not causing those without money to pay for dental procedures to seek support and accept money from the Government for procedures.

Of course, what’s lacking from their entire argument, or what they failed to mention, was the authority to medicate the public, and where that authority comes from. Additionally, they failed to mention anything regarding the irresponsible nature of mass-prescribing a medicine and the immorality of using hard earned taxpayer dollars to pay for this.

HB 1416 is an intriguing bill for me, and if you would like to follow it and see how the vote turns out, or even assist in making calls if you live in New Hampshire, a visit to the Fluoride Action Network, which is coordinating with Representative Anne Cartwright , can be done HERE. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Civil liberties and Rights Related, Diet, Hydration, and Nutrition, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · ·

← Earlier Posts