A Wisconsin judge has ruled that people in that State have no “fundamental right” to consume any food, own or use dairy cows or consume the milk their cows produce, without government permission.
The ruling from Judge Patrick J. Fiedler was in response to a suit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund on behalf of Zinniker Family Farm and several other farms against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Wisconsin is one of the most restrictive States in the nation where the consumption of raw milk is concerned. Raw milk sales are prohibited, but private cow share agreements (where people purchase shares of their own cows) are exempted.
A copy of the judge’s ruling can be read here. On page four the judge writes:
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”
This ruling begs the question: What country does this fascist judge think he lives in?
Hat tip: Naturalnews.com
Conventional medicine has turned the world upside down on the matter of testosterone. It strongly and directly relates testosterone levels to prostate cancer.
The first thing doctors want to do if a male tests positive for prostate cancer is to effect androgen blockage, that is block any production of testosterone. Few men object to or even question this voodoo nonsense.
The truth is that testosterone is the essence of male life. Low male testosterone is the beginning of sorrows. It is almost synonymous with aging. This in no way means that this is a good thing. In fact, unknown to most doctors, the beginning of low testosterone is a signal for the beginning of deterioration of male health.
Beginning around age 35, testosterone levels begin to decline. By the time a man is 70 years old, most of his testosterone is gone. For men who have diabetes, obesity, hypertension or lung disease, the risk of low testosterone is much greater.
The symptoms of low testosterone are low energy, chronic fatigue, low sex drive, poor quality erections, loss of muscle bulk and strength. Low testosterone is proven to be associated with increased risk of diabetes, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries including heart attacks or strokes) and weak bones.
The classic symptom of low testosterone is low libido or low sex drive. In fact, any male above age 40 should suspect low testosterone first if he is beginning to lose his sex drive.
Even if men around the age of 40 have no symptoms of low testosterone at all, they need to be aware that this is the age in life that testosterone declines in most men and negative health begins.
Men, no matter what happens to your health or mood, suspect low testosterone. Your greatest risk is not the fact that you probably have low testosterone beginning around age 40. Your greatest risk is the ignorance of your establishment medicine trained doctor who has been trained to equate testosterone (in any amount low or high) with prostate cancer.
Why in the world is this? Well, establishment medicine is not about health. It is about money!
The medical system requires sick people to feed its money machine. Promoting the blockade of testosterone when prostate cancer is suspected is in my opinion an attack upon male health.
Just you try to convince your doctor of this!
The very first thing every living male should do is learn about male testosterone and consult an alternative medicine doctor.
Read the book Testosterone For Life by Abraham Morgentaler, M.D. I ordered mine from Amazon.com.
Herman Cain, GOP Presidential candidate and former chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, is tired of “stupid questions” about the Federal Reserve. He says so in his new book, This Is Herman Cain, according to The Daily Caller.
“I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events,” Cain writes. “I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try and nail me on the Federal Reserve? It’s really becoming annoying more than anything else.”
Displaying an astounding paranoia, Cain says supporters of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas are out to get him by accusing him of not wanting to audit the Fed.
“I have never said that,” Cain wrote. “I have said: ‘I don’t think you’re going to find anything to audit on the Federal Reserve.’ But they want you to believe that Herman Cain doesn’t want the Federal Reserve to be audited.”
Except that Cain did say that and it is on the record here. According to Cain, there’s no need to audit the Federal Reserve because “all you have to do is call them up and ask” what you want to know and they’ll tell you.
That’s as nonsensical as calling up the Gotti family and asking for a monthly tally of successful mob hits and drug deliveries and expecting an answer, as evidenced by the prevaricating, hedging, backtracking and sleight-of-hand Paul gets when he quizzes Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in Congressional hearings. Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, was even more famous for saying a lot but revealing nothing.
If Cain really believes that people can get the truth out of an organization as secretive as the Federal Reserve — which fights tooth and nail every disclosure request and for two years refused a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal which banks it bailed out with billions of United States dollars and has forever rejected calls for a Congressional audit — he’s too big of a fool to be President. The alternative to that is he’s a Federal Reserve stooge, which I believe to be the case.
On top of that, Cain’s claims in his book that he doesn’t think anything is to be found in a Fed audit is an example of the flip-flop demonstrated in this video.
And there are other questions Cain doesn’t want asked. Like what is his current stance on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout — that he once defended so vehemently, going so far as to call those who opposed it “economic illiterates” — now that he sees that it not only had no positive effect on the economy, but was essentially a piggy bank for propping up President Barack Obama’s campaign donors, foreign banks and Bernanke’s and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s Goldman Sachs bankster buddies?
But Cain isn’t alone in his quest to avoid the tough questions. Texas Governor Rick Perry doesn’t want any questions about all the State dollars he sent to his friends through cushy government jobs and appointments that were then funneled back into his campaign coffers — including those from Merck that led to his mandating all Texas school girls get Gardasil vaccines. Or about what he really wants to do with Social Security. Or about why he supports giving illegal aliens special benefits. He believes anyone who opposes special benefits for illegal aliens is “heartless,” or he did until he realized he had offended about 90 percent of his supporters.
And Newt Gingrich doesn’t want any questions at all, because they’re all “gotcha” questions. But he really doesn’t like those about his campaign or that point out his flips on global warming and cap and trade and the war on Libya or the fact that his third wife ran up a $100,000 tab at a jewelry store.
And Michele Bachmann doesn’t want any questions about her support for the USA PATRIOT Act, or exactly why she thinks Perry’s Gardasil mandate was inappropriate — because she doesn’t really understand it. And she certainly doesn’t want any questions that require her to think beyond a sixth grade level.
And Mitt Romney? He doesn’t want questions about Romneycare or his flips on abortion and gun rights or the way his company bought and carved up businesses for resale at the expense of the jobs of thousands of employees.
And the Republican apparatchik doesn’t want you asking any substantive questions at all — especially of Romney, whom they’ve picked as the their main man — preferring instead those like CNN’s John King asked at the GOP debate June 13: Coke or Pepsi? Deep dish or thin crust? iPhone or Blackberry? Elvis or Johnny Cash? “Dancing With the Stars” or “American Idol?” Spicy or mild?
It’s reminiscent of the question Bill Clinton got: boxers or briefs? This is the state of “Idiocracy” that political discourse has descended to. (If you don’t get the reference, rent the movie. It’s vile, but it’s frighteningly prescient.)
But the Party’s elites approved of one from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to Paul about a hypothetical uninsured 30-year-old man in coma and whether he should receive care. That’s a question similar to asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. It sets up a premise that can’t be addressed in a 30-second sound bite and originates from a false and biased paradigm. (And no, it’s not true that “the whole crowd” shouted “yeah” in response to the question.)
Republican insiders — those same people who brought you Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain — want to again pick your candidate. They have chosen for you another Bilderberg-approved moderate, soft on immigration, neocon, big-government faux conservative for you in Romney. And they selected another Bilderberg-approved challenger in globalist, crony capitalist, soft-on-immigration, one-worlder Perry, hoping for a two-man race between these two and knowing that Perry would eventually crash and burn, leaving the door open for Romney.
But so far, the electorate — those people who actually go to the polls and cast votes — is not cooperating, if polls are to be believed. It’s beginning to ask questions… questions some candidates don’t want to answer.
The electorate had already decided that Romney is not the answer, despite the claims by most pundits and the MSM that it’s going to take someone moderate to attract the independents. After all, the GOP’s nomination of a loved-by-the-press-and-independents moderate worked so well in the last election, why wouldn’t they want to try it again?
And the electorate is on to Perry’s crony capitalism and his stumbling and bumbling answers and insults at debates.
It’s begun to sour on Michele Bachmann, who once seemed attractive but is fading outside of Iowa. Now it’s looking to Cain, the Federal Reserve stooge, but the elites and power brokers aren’t interested in him. And if they see him as a threat, his pro-Fed, pro-bailout past will become MSM fodder.
If Christie’s The Answer, There Must Be A Different Question
That’s the headline on an American Spectator piece now that the elites are floating the idea of another faux conservative in Chris Christie, who’s either playing games with his public pronouncements of not running while behind the scenes dropping hints that he will, or is being prodded so hard by the elites that they know his “nos” really mean “yes.”
The pro-gun control, soft-on-immigration believer in man-made global warming, quintessential Northeast Republican New Jersey Governor is an intriguing character. The Internet is rife with sound bites of Christie excoriating liberal reporters, Democrat lawmakers and teacher’s union dimwits. Those videos have made him a hero to some on the right and in the Tea Party movement who are quick to jerk their knees in the direction of the latest elitist offering without a good vetting first.
So the elites, in an effort to regain control of the selection process, are pushing another moderate (read liberal) in conservative clothing out there to carry their water.
Now it’s time for you, the voter, to ask yourself a question: What do I want from my President? The elites will decide for you if you don’t decide for yourself.
Do you want a candidate who will shrink government, ensure our national defense, make our country safer, change the tax structure, protect life, end the Federal Reserve and return our government to its Constitutional boundaries? Do you want a candidate who has been steadfast in his positions for 30 years in the face of never-ending criticism and has never wavered in his allegiance to the Constitution? Do you want a candidate who can beat President Barack Obama in November 2012, as polls here and here show ?
There is one person in the race who is has not flipped his positions depending on the race he’s running, like Romney has. There’s one who never supported TARP and bailouts like Cain, Romney and Perry did. There is one who has always believed the Federal Reserve needs to be audited — unlike Cain, Perry and Gingrich who only recently took up this mantra when it became politically expedient. There is only one who believes that after an audit, the Fed must be eliminated. There is only one who has always voted for the Constitution and against growing government and increasing taxes — unlike Gingrich, Bachmann and Santorum. And there is only one who believes the U.S. needs to quit meddling in the affairs of other nations and get out of the United Nations.
There is only one true conservative in the race, and his name starts with Ron and ends with Paul.
To follow our election coverage right through November 2012, go to Election 2012. There you will find candidate biographies and news and videos on what they’re doing, what they’re saying and the latest on polls and campaign news.
There is no better example of the folly of United States foreign policy of the last 10 years than what is currently going on in Pakistan and Libya.
The terrorist organization du jour, the Haqqani network, is an arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told Congress last week that Haqqani, with ISI support, conducted a truck bomb attack that wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO troops on Sept. 11 and an assault on the U.S. embassy in Kabul two days later, along with other attacks.
The ISI is part of the Pakistani government — a government that receives $1.5 billion in U.S. aid each year.
In Libya, U.S. and NATO forces have supported the overthrow of the Moammar Gadhafi regime by elements of the al-Qaida network we are supposedly trying to destroy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.
Sadly, most of contenders for the GOP nomination have expressed support of our current foreign policy — a policy that rewards with cash and military aid those who are shooting at our troops.
Does that sound like a policy designed to bring about an end to military engagements? Does it sound like a policy designed to make the citizens of other countries embrace America?
Not to me. To me, that sounds like the perpetual war of the warfare state.
During his campaign for President in 2000, George W. Bush said he would be judicious in his use of the military and opposed using it for nation building. Yet by the end of his Presidency, the U.S. had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and was rebuilding those countries; and the military was being used without a declaration of war in a number of other countries that had not attacked us.
As a candidate for election in 2008, Barack Obama promised to remove troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and to end America’s involvement in foreign wars. Now we are fighting wars in those two countries, plus Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; and we currently maintain about 900 military bases in more than 100 countries.
The Founders warned us about the dangers of overseas military engagements.
In his farewell address, President George Washington said:
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course… Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
Later, in a letter to Patrick Henry, he wrote:
My ardent desire is, and my aim has been … to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.
And in a series of tracts called The American Crisis, Thomas Paine wrote:
Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to ‘bind me in all cases whatsoever’ to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?
The Founders believed we should stay away from foreign entanglements and involve ourselves only in wars in which there was an expressed vital U.S. interest or in response to an attack.
As you evaluate who you will support in the next Presidential election, ask yourself which of the candidates demonstrates that he or she understands the proper use of the military as envisioned by the Founders. They didn’t believe the U.S. should police the world, and we can certainly no longer afford it.