• 

In an interview with AM 1280 on Saturday, Rep. Michele Bachmann announced that she will have Rep. Ron Paul as her guest for a September town hall forum in St. Cloud.

“I’ll be doing another town hall up in the St. Cloud area in September and we’ll do that on monetary policy. Ron Paul is going to come in and we are going to host something on monetary policy,” Bachmann said.

Bachmann is a convert to the Ron Paul movement, sometimes attending the congressman’s weekly lunches.

“I especially want to speak to the 19-20 year olds so they can know what there future will be under this level of debt accumulation and spending,” she added about the forum. “They need to know their future. And so I’m bringing him in so we can have a discussion on monetary policy.”

http://minnesotaindependent.com/42610/bachmann-to-host-town-hall-with-rep-ron-paul

• 

• 

I’m not usually one to go around bashing big government. I’m a bit too left-leaning for that.

I have to protest some recent government intervention, though: Once again, the U.S. government is attempting to mandate healthy habits, this time by banning flavored and clove cigarettes.

As of September 22, it won’t be illegal to possess flavored cigarettes, but it will be illegal to sell them. As a result, clove cigarettes, which have been imported from Indonesia and sold in the U.S. since 1968, and cigarettes flavors like cherry and chocolate mocha are about to become a controlled substance.

Ostensibly, this portion of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law on June 22, will prevent yummy-sounding cigarette flavors like cherry and chocolate mocha from tempting young people into smoking.

In fact, this law—which passed handily in both houses of congress—will have little impact on teen smoking and a great deal of impact on adults’ freedom of choice (or perhaps I should say freedom of vice.)

Pay no attention to the cigarette company behind the curtain

The act, which was sponsored by Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) and championed by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)), benefited from an unusual ally.

Philip-Morris—the tobacco giant who controls fully half of the U.S. cigarette market share—had its tarry hands all over the passage of this legislation.

At first blush, it seems strange that the company would join forces with the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids )—which champions itself as an organization “working to expose Big Tobacco’s lies”—to achieve what Obama calls “a victory for health care reform.”

A closer look, however, reveals that Philip-Morris has nothing to lose with this legislation and everything to gain.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10873-LA-Health-and-Beauty-Examiner~y2009m8d23-Flavor-cigarette-ban-curbs-freedom-helps-big-tobacco-keep-selling

• 

• 

courtesy of THE BEST SOURCE OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA VIDEOS:

Paterson NJ Considers Midnight to 7AM Curfew For All Citizens

• 

• 

The assault on Liberty is in full force, and it has lead to a discovery unheard of; and proves the point that the Gov’t will be controlling our health decisions from the privacy of our own homes. 

It was discovered by Chuck Norris (who kicks ass by the way!) and it would allow Gov’t health officials into your home to make health decisions for you and your family.

From Town Hall:

It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

Here is a link to the actual text of the bill. Scroll down and look for headline about home visitations.

http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2009/08/govt-health-officials-will-be-allowed.html

• 

• 

New surveys by CNN and Quinnipiac University show that American satisfaction with President Barack Obama’s performance has decreased.

Fifty percent of Quinnipiac voters said they approved of Obama, while the president’s approval rating came out to be 56 percent in the CNN poll.

The ratings have dropped from 57 percent approval in Quinnipiac’s late June survey and five points since CNN’s June poll.

According to assistant director of Quinnipiac’s polling institute Peter Brown, Americans are concerned about rising unemployment and new healthcare plans.

Taken from July 27 to August 3, the Quinnipiac survey showed that only 49 percent of voters approved of Obama’s handling of the economy and 52 percent expressed their satisfaction with the president’s efforts to improve the country’s healthcare system.

The CNN poll showed that Obama’s rating among white men has dropped 14 points since April.

“A majority of white men supported him at the 100-day mark, but now most white men disapprove of how he is handling his job,” CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

“Obama has also slipped among non-whites, but he still gets support from over 70 percent of that group,” Holland added.

Forty-four percent of CNN voters said that Obama’s economy polices have worked well so far, Daily News reported.

“But another 11 percent say that Obama’s policies will eventually improve the economy,” said Holland, “which adds up to a majority who say his policies have helped or will help the economy.”

Source: Press TV

• 

• 

Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom’s friend in Congress, introduced two important bills yesterday that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

Here is the Life Extension Foundation’s description of the bills:

HR 3395: The Health Freedom Act. This bill removes FDA’s power of prior restraint over all nutrient-disease relationship claims. Under the bill, the FDA may not prohibit any statement concerning a nutrient affecting a disease (including treatment effects) from being made in the market and may only act against a statement once made if it possesses clear and convincing evidence that the statement is false. Presently the FDA blocks an enormous quantity of truthful information concerning the effects of nutrients and foods on disease from reaching consumers. That barrier is removed by the Health Freedom Act, but the Act preserves the power of the government to prosecute those who communicate falsehood. The essential purpose of the First Amendment is to disarm the federal government of the power to impose a prior restraint on speech. The FDA has imposed a prior restraint for decades to the health detriment of the public. Passage of the Health Freedom Act will restore constitutional governance by reasserting the supremacy of the First Amendment over the Food and Drug Administration.

HR 3394: The Health Information Protection Act. This bill prevents the Federal Trade Commission from taking action against any advertiser that communicates a health benefit for a product unless the FTC first establishes based on clear and convincing evidence that the statement made is false and that its communication causes harm to the public. Presently, the FTC reverses the Fifth Amendment burden of proof on the government when it charges advertisers with deceptive advertising and then demands that they prove their speech true based on contemporaneously held documentation or be deemed to have advertised deceptively. The Fifth Amendment requires that FTC bear the burden of proving advertising deceptive. It may not constitutionally shift the burden to the advertiser to prove its statements not deceptive. The First Amendment requires that FTC not act against speech unless the speech is probably false. It may not constitutionally accuse a party of false advertising yet lack proof that the advertising is false and condemn advertising based on an absence of documentation concerning the truth of the statement rather than the presence of evidence establishing the falsity of the statement.

These bills go to the heart of the issue of valid health claims for nutrient products: how do companies substantiate the claims they are making. Essentially the bills apply Constitutional principles to the making of claims, which are a type of speech, and are therefore protected from excessive bureaurcratic burden.

In this context it is useful to see what then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court majority in the leading health claim free speech case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357 -

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort.”

“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”

“Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each …to be labeled with a warning that the [product] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown.”

The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance” the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

Dr. Paul’ s bills make it clear that the government has the burden of proof if it seeks to restrict what marketers say about their health related products. In this way, his bills preserve the Constitutional protections for Commercial Speech.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am and is filed under Dietary Supplements,Divest Governement of Food Regulation, Food Crisis, Get Involved, Legislation to Support, Privacy,Promising Developments . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

• 

• 

In response to a letter published on July 28, concerning the overall well-working universal health care system in Canada since 1965, Rick Doyon said that he “continues to be amused by the ongoing debate over health care in the U.S., and how Republican politicians have, for decades, used (fear) to protect their friends in the private health insurance industry.” I would add to what he said by saying that it looks as though Democratic politicians are protective of their friends in the insurance industry as well. How so? Our Democratic administration appear to be squirming in their chamber seats as to how to reform health care and appease their health care contributors at the same time. The real question is: Are they working for what is in the best interest of the American people, who are their constituents, or do they work for the corporations, who are their personal contributors?

It used to be said, “So goes the big three, so goes the country.” That was, concerning the United Auto Workers Union in the heydays before corporate America began sending American jobs and wealth to offshore locations.

Did you know that the UAW members asked Washington to implement a single-payer health care system in their efforts to keep Detroit in the game? We even had one 2008 presidential candidate who went to the New Hampshire kickoff — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio. He couldn’t get enough corporate-owned media coverage to cover a postage stamp. But he was one, and maybe the only one, who supported and campaigned for true universal health care. “One of the greatest hoaxes of this campaign, everyone’s for universal health care,” Kucinich said. “It’s like a mantra, but when you get into the details, you find out that other candidates are talking about maintaining the existing for-profit system.”

watertowndailytimes.com

•