America, awash in red ink !!

Congress passed a sham GMO labeling bill...another example of government corruption...this time, mostly Republican. Either they are ignorant of what they voted for or they are in the pocket of big corporate lobbies who have been fighting to keep us in the dark about what is in our food.

 Dr. Colin Pritchard from the University of Edinburgh,
admits to 'current uncontrolled experiment' in reference to geoengineering!

So you say this is just another conspiracy theory?  The danger of these experiments is unknown, but considering the huge volume of aluminum, strontium and barium being dumped into our atmosphere, how can this be a good thing? After being queried in the recent climate conference at Paris, about how geoengineering experiments are having a drastic effect on the bee population, Prof. Pritchard remarked...

"I think we have to be nuanced on specific proposals, specific technologies. But I think we can perhaps all agree that certainly none of us want to continue the current uncontrolled experiment."

Chemtrails have been seen at least since the Clinton administration. Scientists in Hawaii and California have analyzed soil in those states and are very concerned about the rise in the levels of these chemicals in the soil and water. It is certain that plants absorb aluminum from soil. Is this a possible explanation for the drastic increase in a number of diseases and other abnormalities, such as autism and alzheimers? There is definitely a clear link between excess aluminum in the bloodstream of Alzheimer's patients and other neurological conditions.

Being an avid fisherman, I am also concerned that these chemicals dumped on our rivers and streams are also having an effect on the fish population and our health when we consume them. It is widely known that fish absorb heavy metals, such as mercury. Aluminum is also a heavy metal...following the evidence leads to an inescapable conclusion. Call it a conspiracy or not, whoever is responsible for dumping this stuff on us, is dumbing us down, contaminating our soils and water, diminishing the bee population and other beneficial insects that pollinate plants andchemically polluting our food supply. 


Learn more:

The government response to an "Imminent Health hazard" petition..."So what, we must depopulate!"

Now owned by Pfizer, G.D. Searle was a company focused on pharmaceuticals and animal ‘health’. But, what’s ironic about this company and its mission is the amount of suffering it has actually created with the invention of aspartame – a deadly artificial substance that should be avoided like the plague.

(FDA) Michael Delaney’s offhand remark is clear revelation of FDA’s active participation in a program to eliminate “unnecessary eaters” as they call us.

An imminent health hazard notice must be answered immediately. (within 180 days) The first petition was sent in 2002.

Delaney said: “It ain’t going to happen!”, admitting they refuse to operate within the law, and consider themselves above the law, taking a dictatorship position. Meanwhile FDA persecutes food manufacturers such as cherry and walnut companies by declaring that since these natural foods have health benefits they’re drugs.



Why is Organic Food so Expensive? 

You guessed it...The federal government.

It takes three years for a farm to be certified organic by the USDA. Luke Howard, owner of Homestead Farms in Maryland,  said he wants to expand production, though he would incur losses on the new acres during the transition period.

Americans, used to cheap food, should consider the “true cost of good food” and the “fair price” farmers should receive for producing it, Howard said. Some farmers apply organic standards to their farming practices, but cannot comply with USDA standards because of all the costs and record keeping requirements. Such produce is available at the Clarksville. TN downtown market.  

Rivara SA, a Perdue supplier in Argentina, has doubled its land for growing organic corn, soybeans, wheat, canola and sunflower crops since 2009 to about 7,900 hectares (19,500 acres) because of booming demand from the U.S.

Perdue, the largest producer of organic chicken, began offering the birds in 2011 after purchasing Coleman Natural Foods. Under the Coleman brand, Perdue sells organic chicken cuts and cooked sausages and is experiencing “double digit” growth in organic chicken sales, according to spokeswoman Julie DeYoung.

For regular birds, the company mostly buys conventional crops close to both U.S. coasts where it runs elevators. For organic supplies, it has to reach deep into the Midwest to find non-GMO, organic,  corn and soybeans, and must haul them longer distances, adding to costs, said Mike Spangler, Perdue’s director of organic grain.

Perdue is researching techniques to grow organic corn and soybeans on 70 acres in Maryland and Delaware and passes on tips to farmers. The company is also sourcing organic corn and soybeans from Argentina, India and Turkey, he said. So the American economy takes another blow on the chin for having to import safe feed.

Genetically modified food products are routinely introduced to the market without testing, awaiting confirmation of safety that never happens or is blocked by Monsanto and other chemical conglomerates.  T]he US Food and Drug Administration has ushered these controversial products onto the market by evading standards of science, deliberately breaking the law, and seriously misrepresenting the facts - and that the American people were being regularly (and unknowingly) subjected to novel foods that were abnormally risky in the eyes of the agency's own scientists.


  Genetically engineered animals appear to be the next frontier and, as of press time, the FDA is reviewing a genetically engineered salmon. Developed by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty, the salmon has the ability to reach maturity twice as fast as wild salmon. If approved, it will be the first genetically engineered animal authorized for human consumption. A few national supermarkets, including Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, have already announced they would not offer the salmon if approved, though so far the FDA has found the fish to be as safe as wild salmon. Regardless of whether the salmon gets the okay, roughly 35 other species of genetically modified fish are in development.
 

Why indeed Does the Government Restrict Raw Milk? 

(NaturalNews) The next time somebody tries to tell you that drinking raw milk is unsafe because the "statistics" show that it sickens so-many thousands of people every year, ask that person to show you the raw data and explain how it was gathered and compiled to arrive at this conclusion. Chances are that none of it will hold up to scientific scrutiny, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been exposed for intentionally fudging and literally making up numbers to supports its anti-raw milk agenda.

The Complete Patient's David Gumpert talks all about this in a new report for AlterNet.org, explaining how the CDC fabricates data on raw milk illnesses to maintain the illusion that raw milk is dangerous to consume. For instance, even though a mere 21 illnesses associated with raw milk were reported in the state of Minnesota during the decade between 2001 and 2010, the CDC somehow came up with a figure of more than 20,000, which the agency is using as "evidence" to support its longstanding position of opposition to raw milk.

According to Gumpert, the CDC routinely applies theoretical "multipliers" to the actual number of reported illnesses that are possibly associated with raw milk consumption. Known as "pathogen-specific underdiagnosis multipliers," these assessment tools are basically a fill-in for the estimated number of illnesses that are not reported to health authorities -- not everyone who gets sick from food reports it to a doctor.

But because they are theoretical in nature, not to mention inherently biased against raw milk, these multipliers end up generating specious data on raw milk illnesses that have no basis in reality. In this case, 17 actual illnesses that may have been associated with raw milk consumption suddenly became 20,000 "confirmed" illnesses, the vast majority of which were supposedly never brought to the attention of health authorities.

"Using unusual epidemiological methodologies, along with curious mathematical modeling and extrapolations, the CDC study reckoned there were more than 20,000 illnesses from raw milk in Minnesota, rather than the 21 that had been previously reported by public health authorities as attributable to raw milk," writes Gumpert.

CDC using deception, fear to scare people away from real milk

Since its publishing, the CDC Minnesota Raw Milk Study has received intense criticism from raw milk advocates everywhere, who are decrying it as irresponsible and chock-full of misinformation. The Raw Milk Institute, for instance, issued a rebuttal questioning the methodologies used in the study, as well as the unfounded assumptions made by its authors.

One such assumption -- and a glaringly deceptive one at that -- is the CDC's standard presupposition that raw milk is inherently dangerous, and its associated illnesses somehow vastly underreported. The CDC has made it official policy to automatically blame raw milk in virtually every instance where a person becomes ill and just so happened to have recently consumed a raw milk product. In other words, all other potential food culprits are immediately dismissed as potential culprits when raw milk is involved.

"This study is disturbing on a number of levels, but big picture, it seems to set a dangerous precedent," adds Gumpert. "It represents a radical departure from past public health data analysis. Post-Minnesota-data, if you get sick from campylobacter or E.coli O157:H7 or salmonella and you have consumed raw milk, then any other culprits, like chicken or fast food, can be automatically eliminated and you can be assumed to have been sickened by raw milk.

Be sure to read Gumpert's full report on the CDC's anti-raw milk crusade by visiting:
http://www.alternet.org.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043846_raw_milk_illnesses

_fake_statistics_CDC.html#ixzz39SgzENk8

  (NaturalNews) Until the early 20th century, raw milk - natural milk sourced straight from the cow - was considered both a safe, nutritious drink and a medicine. Doctors would routinely prescribe it for a plethora of chronic ailments ranging from indigestion to constipation, and many native cultures regarded it as a perfect food. After all, just as eggs provide all the nutrients needed to grow a healthy chick, milk provides all the nutrients needed to grow a healthy calf.

In this article, you'll find out why raw milk was held in such regard by every culture that consumed it. You'll also find out how today's processed milk, which has undergone pasteurization and homogenization, compares to it in the nutrition department.

Raw milk vs. processed milk


Vitamins
 - Vitamins A, C, D, E, and K are all found within raw milk, as are a large number of important B-vitamins such as choline, folic acid and vitamin B12. All of these vitamins have various roles, ranging from enhancing intestinal absorption of certain nutrients and boosting collagen production to aiding cellular metabolism or inhibiting free radicals. Processed milk, on the other hand, has a less impressive profile. Vitamins A and C are totally destroyed by the heating and pressing processes, as are 38 percent of the B-vitamins. Fortunately, vitamins D, E, and K remain intact.

Protein
 - All 22 standard amino acids are found in raw milk, including the eight essential amino acids that our bodies cannot make themselves. Consequently, raw milk is considered an excellent protein source for children and adolescents. Processed milk, however, suffers from a compromised amino acid profile. Studies show that pasteurization kills at least two of these compounds (histidine and lysine), which destabilizes the milk's protein structure and inhibits its absorption rate.

Minerals
 - Like all whole foods, raw milk enjoys a mineral profile that has been optimized by nature for superior absorption. For example, the magnesium in the milk helps our bodies absorb its calcium. Minerals always work in tandem, never in isolation. Now, can you guess what happens with processed milk? That's right - the amounts of each mineral within the milk is greatly diminished, completely disrupting the hitherto harmonious relationships between each nutrient. Consequently, some minerals (such as phosphorus and iodine) are difficult to absorb, whereas others don't get absorbed at all.

Fats
 - Raw milk provides us with all 18 fatty acids needed by our bodies, including conjugated linoleic acid. These fats boost brain function and cellular metabolism, help form healthy cell membranes and more. In processed milk, though, the homogenization process actually oxidizes these fats, turning them carcinogenic. This makes processed milk toxic for us to consume.

Enzymes
 - Raw milk provides us with over 60 active enzymes that perform a wide range of tasks within our bodies. One of these enzymes is lipase, which helps us to actually digest the milk. Pasteurization and homogenization, however, destroy a massive number of these enzymes - including lipase. Ever wondered why so many people have a difficult time digesting processed milk? It's because the very enzyme needed to digest it properly no longer exists!

Conclusion

All of this information makes for an obvious conclusion: raw milk is a remarkable whole food, whereas processed milk is a foreign, toxic substance without nutritional balance or stability.

If you are unable to access organic raw milk in your country/state for whatever reason, it's better to stick with a nutritious milk substitute (such as organic almond milk or coconut milk) than pasteurized and homogenized cow's milk. The latter is but a grotesque shadow of its former self.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042353_raw_milk_processed

_food_organic.html#ixzz39SiRbO61

This is just one example of government overreach we could site to illustrate how dishonest government bureaucrats continue to side with lobbyists, greedy corporations and special interest groups against the public and the constitution. The constitution was designed to protect us from government overreach and secure our liberties. Liberal lawyers have gained control of all the important sectors of government, education and the economy. They are inherently anti-American and opposed to any moral standards. Thus, they have no problem lying, deceiving, conniving, cheating or stealing to achieve their agenda. We must take back our government at the ballotbox.

Here, Have a Laugh...

Two engineers were standing at the base of a flagpole, looking at its top. A woman walked by and asked what they were doing. "We're supposed to find the height of this flagpole," said one, "but we don't have a ladder." The woman took a wrench from her purse, loosened a couple of bolts, and laid the pole down on the ground. Then she took a tape measure from her pocketbook, took a measurement, and announced, "Twenty one feet, six inches," and walked away. One engineer shook his head and laughed, "A lot of good that does us. We ask for the height and she gives us the length!" Both engineers have since quit their engineering jobs and are currently serving in the United States Congress.

 

  


Make a free website with Yola