Thomas Jefferson

Click here to view the embedded video.

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. 

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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

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? 

Click here to view the embedded video.

[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

 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

“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: 

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Quoted directly from the Bill  general description, 

“This bill prohibits federal regulation of an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah, and addresses the designation of a Utah agricultural product.”

This bill has reached a critical stage in the process to becoming law, soon to be voted on, and that is greatly in thanks to Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. I’d advocate visiting the Tenth Amendment Center website for great Constitution info and Tenth amendment related current events.

Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center argued that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which Federal Law should be based around, and that because of this, Federal regulation in State Agriculture is unconstitutional because the Federal Government only has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Intrastate Commerce refers to commerce within the state, while interstate commerce refers to commerce between the respective states. And the supporters of this bill were justified in my opinion; the farmers of Utah and other states shouldn’t have to deal with regulation imposed on small farms because one big agriculture industry farm screwed up using a shady connection with a department or agency.

And the farmers shouldn’t have to deal with potentially getting raided or shut down by Federal officials for planting crops or drinking milk.

Another term important to understand in relation to this issue is nullification.

The Nullification Definition, according to Thomas Woods, author of Nullification (highly recommended):

“State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws”

[Source] 

This is the idea that States have the authority to reject Unconstitutional laws. It’s an authority I am glad exists, and is a great opportunity for citizens to petition their local and state Governments to nullify Unconstitutional trends. It is one of the best tools the people have to restore a more Constitutional Government and free market. This is a tool I find perfect for the food freedom movement, especially in relation to RAW MILK. 

State nullification is related to another term I think is very important to know, albeit knowing that term definitions don’t make for an interesting blog post:

Jury Nullification, best summed up by John Adams, 

“It is not only his right but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” [Source]

 Jury nullification is as useful as State Nullification, and really helps us understand that the the people have the power to reject unconstitutional law at the State and legislative level with State nullification and State elections, at the judicial level with jury nullification, and at the Federal Level with Federal elections.

Jury nullification is the power of a juror to vote innocent or guilty according to how he or she sees the case. In cases of unjust and unconstitutional law, it is the power to vote innocent. This does and has worked before, and can exemplified by many cases that occurred during the Prohibition period in the United States. 

I think this Bill and this philosophy of Nullification is something the Raw Milk and Food freedom movements should take notice of, along with all groups pursuing more liberty and more Constitutional law in other respective issues. The fact that there is a power to reject what we see as unjust is a beacon of hope and an important tool for restoring just, fair, and Constitutional law.

Check out Nullification, by Thomas Woods, to find out more about this important tool. 

Ahmed Serag

It is a lost opportunity because there are people out there searching for someone to fight for their right to do what they want with their property (their body), and there are a lot of them. Current estimates of raw milk consumption in the United States estimate 3.04% of the population consumes Raw Milk, which is about 9.2 million people (Source).

It’s a lost moral responsibility because it is the exact duty of a public servant, to serve the public, even when it means getting into legal and Constitutional talks on the authority of the Federal Government. We need to talk about this. We need to talk about what role Government plays in dictating what a free man or free woman can put into his or her body.

Of course, the Texas Congressman, Doctor, and Presidential FrontRunner, Ron Paul , did not lose his responsibility or this opportunity, unlike ALL the other candidates on either side (D/R). Watch the following video from a New Hampshire Event and check out Ron Paul’s H.R. 1830 Bill (AKA Legalize Raw Milk Bill). 

Click here to view the embedded video.

Liberty Defined

It is unacceptable that Raw Milk New Hampshire farmers and farmers of every other state have to worry about being raided by the Federal Government. It is unacceptable that in a time where cutting spending is necessary for our survival as a sovereign nation, the Feds are spending taxpayer money on guns and vests and SWAT teams to raid FARMS.  

It is unacceptable that small business owners, in a time of recession and close-depression, caused by Big Government and the Federal Reserve, have to worry about being raided and having their product and capital destroyed.

It is unacceptable that in a time when the Constitution needs to be revived and our rights restored, bills like NDAA and SOPA have support from congressmen. It is unacceptable that in a nation required to govern by Constitutional law, a person can not walk up to a farmer, appreciate his hard work, and purchase a glass of milk. 

We either own our bodies or we do not. We either have the right to claim our bodies as our property, and therefore the right to choose what goes in, or we do not. The minute we allow Government to make the decision on what’s allowed in our bodies, it sets the precedent that you no longer have a right to your body, and instead, the Government does. 

And this is the Ron Paul Raw Milk New Hampshire difference. You can sum up a candidates views on your rights and freedom in general by their stance on health freedom. Raw Milk emulates the situation and presents a perfect opportunity for candidates to declare their opinions to people who care about their health and their right to their bodies.

Dr. Paul understands the philosophy of liberty, and understands how that philosophy interacts with the market, the Government, and the individual. No other candidate has mentioned this issue, and with the New Hampshire 2012 Republican Primary tomorrow, it looks like no other candidate will receive the votes and support associated with the issue. 

Ahmed Serag

An example of this is the requirement for food manufacturers to list ingredients and certain additives in foods, besides the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. This is where one of the many problems of food labels occurs, despite the benefits many people would claim on behalf of required ingredient lists. 

The GRAS list is a list of additives and the like, recognized as safe by scientists and Government. Of course what’s not mentioned here is the massive revolving door between Government and agriculture/pharmaceutical corporations, and these industries and non profit groups that approve the standards for these labels.

These special and corrupt relationships allow for regulators and legislators to be promised future jobs as executives in respective industries, in return for favorable opinions and support on demand.  The GRAS list is an example of an action by Government I see to be taken in the future with the GMO Food Label. And the GMO Food label and food label laws are really the focus of this post and a defining issue in the food labeling argument. To read a little more on the GMO Food label before moving on, you can go HERE. 

Back to the GRAS. The GRAS list is a situation where Big Gov decides which additives don’t need to be seen on ingredient lists, and which ones do. This allows shady additives to make their way on to the list, similarly to how Genetically modified foods have made it into the food supply. It also allows for the safer ingredients to be seen, as required by one law, and the unsafer ingredients to be shifted to the list, permitted by another law.

And if the revolving door is present now, without a GMO food label law, how would things change with one? Companies aren’t just going to stop spending money on lobbying or stop promising jobs. And certainly, the Government officials who accept lobbying and future jobs aren’t just going to act morally because a new law was passed. They don’t do it now, and will always be prone to it (with a couple exceptions).

Immediately following and most definitely prior to, a plan for genetically modified foods around the GMO food label law would be instituted, and the power given to Government would be taken advantage of. If the people support a GMO food label, we are not only supporting a GMO food label. We are supporting the authority of Government to intervene in the food industry, and with the logic present in politics today, every industry.

These issues come about because of too much Government intervention, and companies shifting their focus to satisfy Government demand for money and jobs in return for regulation that hurt small business and grant more power to the involved parties (not the people).

The solution to the problem is not more Government intervention, but more citizen intervention. If the people, or the market, change as individuals, and consequently, cause change in other people’s lives because of their own individual efforts, a new demand will prosper. 

The demand for food labeling will result in grocery stores that do label, food manufactures that label, and organic producers who offer non genetic options. By allowing the market to solve this problem, instead of the State, we avoid the abuse of power in the future by officials who decide to label foods in other ways, that may be completely unfair to healthy foods.

After all, every law passed not only gives power to those currently in office, but those who will take that office in the future. Are you willing to put your trust in every future official who takes office and has the authority to act on a law, like a food label law? 

We also avoid the abuse of power that results in small businesses facing new regulation and new taxes, and larger companies getting exemptions or simply being able to profit off the expensive Government intervention which damages their small business competition.

Human action is required. Freedom can be taken advantage of by different parties, which is an issue many bring up with in relation to big business and the free market,  but the key here is that the people are actually free to take advantage of that power. The current system of centralized power legally takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of officials, who then sell that power to lobbyists and who knows who else. 

You’ve probably heard the saying, “Freedom isn’t free”, and as cheesy as it may sound, it really isn’t. You have to put in effort for your freedom, and we all have to decide whether our rights are worth the effort. I believe they are.

Recommended reading:

Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises

Ahmed Serag

I, being a fan of both Tom Woods and Mark Sisson seperately, before this interview, can completely understand why this would happen. When I first discovered Mark Sisson’s Primal book, it opened my eyes to an entirely different way of thinking about health, nutrition, exercise, stress, and sleep. It gave me a lifestyle I was confident enough with to get rid of unwanted weight, any type of sugar/bread habits/addiction, and bad habits in exercise, sleep, and stress-management.

And not too long ago, the Mises Institute and Tom Woods, and many others from and experts of that institute, revolutionized the way I think about politics, economics, and history. This type of information has never been more important than it is today, which makes it exciting and enlightening.

I’ve wanted the two groups to come together and now they have,

Tom Woods interviews Mark Sisson on the Primal Book: Interview

Key Points:

• The Primal Blueprint is not a diet, it’s a lifestyle, a way of taking control of your own health through knowledge of the body and knowledge of gene expression and its relationship to diet and lifestyle
• The overload of sugar and grains in our diets is responsible for much of the blame fat gets, and responsible for much of the excess weight and insulin problems we see rising
• The body can be healthy, and it functions best when healthy, and each of us has the capability to get healthy with the correct form of eating, movement, sleep, and so on 
• Getting healthy important now with rising and already high healthcare prices, inflation will only lead to higher costs in the future
• Mark explains why he believes grains are unnecessary, explains the large amount of research against grains, mentions lectins and anti-nutrients, which take nutrients from the body or prevent the nutrients from digestion, which can lead to various disorders 
• On the 6-11 servings of grain recommended in Food Guide Pyramid, Mark explains that the best way to take control of health is through knowledge and research, and that the movement to change the way of thinking present at the USDA and within the Food Guide Pyramid, is bottom-up. It takes individuals and human action to change the way society and Government thinks.
• On the issue of deprivation and restriction, the feeling may be present at the beginning, but disappears soon-after, and the creativity with primal foods coupled with the benefits of Primal nutrition beat out the sweets and fast foods. 
• Mark Mentions that Cholesterol is one of the most important nutrients in the body, and that the research against cholesterol should not disqualify the research for Cholesterol
• Mark Mentions that protein consumption does not impact uric acid levels as negatively as fructose does, which is found in fruit, but also in many other processed foods as a form of sugar. Meat or other protein foods can be mistakenly identified as the culprit when changes in Uric acid are recorded.
• Most body composition, the split between muscle and fat, is related to hormones, and the amount of exercise required to influence the changes is much smaller than recommended
• Mark explains his workouts consist of two short weight lifting workouts, one sprint workout, and any type of non exercise related movement, such as walking or favored sports when time favors it
• On the question of including a little bit of grains or not, Mark explains what works for him and his supporters, which is a test of whether grains work for each individual. Dropping grains for a couple weeks can give an idea of what benefits might come from dropping grains altogether, rather than including a smaller amount of grains.
• On the issue of the emphasis of grains in schools, even sometimes over fruit and vegetables, any progress to be made has to be grassroots. Each individual changing the way they eat, the way they move, and so on, will have an effect on others. Mark also mentions becoming active in local Government and local school boards to drive the issue. 
• With fermented legumes and fermented grains, Mark explains it much deeper in the Primal book, but explains that even while better than regular grains and legumes, shouldn’t be the basis of a primal blueprint book type of lifestyle, but can be included

Mark finishes off the interview mentioning the amount of information in the book, and having read it, I have to recommend it to all readers. He goes much deeper in to the reasoning behind why conventional nutrition is wrong, and explains his positions in the Primal Blueprint book, backing it up with research and examples. It was a life-changing book for me, and I hope it can be for you; this is the perfect book for the new year.

The Primal Blueprint

Ahmed Serag

To get a better understanding of a word, the dictionary gives sentences that the word is used in. I like to give examples:

Will Ron Paul Kill the Iowa Caucus?

Iowa GOP Worry about Hacker threat to Caucus [Link removed, but linked to a story on the potential threat of hackers to the caucus]

Click here to view the embedded video.

[Had to go to RT, who I commend, to show the bias in our media, although the media here claims to be a Free Press]

Even though the Iowan people are choosing their candidate, which seems to be Ron Paul (according to the latest polls all putting him in-front), the Governor of Iowa, had the audacity to say this, in response to the rise of Ron Paul in Iowa:

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” Governor Terry Branstad told Politico. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.” [Source 1] [Source 2]

This is the Governor of Iowa saying that his people’s votes don’t matter. I wonder how his opinion would change if Ron Paul were to come in second, instead of first? Would he say people should be focusing on first and third place, and ignore the vote of hundreds of thousands of Iowans?

What is going on here? What is going on when the State Governments bend to the will of the Federal Government, and the allegedly free press institute campaigns of propaganda that only perpetuate more Government control?

What happens when the voice of businesses and corporations disappear, and certain corporations realize the only demand they need to meet in the absence of a free market economy (which is the case in America)  is that of the Government’s?

What happens when the people’s voice no longer matters, or more specifically, when the people decide their voice does not matter? 

It was the people who through their states, granted specific priveleges to Government, which are different than rights. We mutually agreed to allow the Government certain powers and obligations, while simultaneously commanding them to respect and take an oath to protect the people’s rights. That is a privilege. 

The Iowan people are a free people. The state of Iowa is a member of the United States of America, and by itself, an independent free state. It is the free people of Iowa who should be deciding who their free state chooses as a candidate for 2012.

The people have the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to petition their Government, the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to their property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable punishment, unreasonable search, and unreasonable seizure. This is just a small list of the rights the people were born with. 

The Government has the privilege to protect our liberty, not seize or limit it, not censor or eliminate it, but to protect it. And the Government, and its Government controlled press, should realize that the people of Iowa are free, and that screwing with their votes, and screwing with their freedom, only motivates them to learn about freedom more, and to speak about freedom more.

The people of Iowa should realize that our rights do not exist if we ourselves do not acknowledge them.

Learn about your rights, read the Constitution, and realize that regardless of what a poll says, what a vote says, or what a propaganda perpetuating press says, the spread and growth of liberty in the minds of people is not something that can be tallied nor does it need to be tallied. And regardless of the outcome of the Iowa 2012 caucus, the message of liberty has already started to spread.

I stand with the people of Iowa and their dedication to the Constitution and freedom. 

“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men” -Samuel Adams

Ahmed Serag