Holy Cow! The war on milk…

Illegal substance “partakers”???

By, Gayle Lane

Extending for four decades now, the war on drugs has ingrained a certain ideology into society. What was sold as an initiative to get dangerous drugs off the streets has conceived a totalitarian mindset that government has the authority to control everything you eat and drink and, if you disobey, the state can fine you, destroy your property, raid your home and throw you in jail. I’m not talking about cocaine or meth. I’m not even talking about marijuana. I’m talking about milk.

According to Time Magazine , “for some Americans, milk has become a test of their freedom. And they’re not paranoid kooks either; the government really is out to get them, authorizing seizures of bottles and jugs of unpasteurized milk and, in one recent case, a full-on, agents-brandishing-guns raid.”

There is indeed a war going on, and it’s threatening one of your most basic freedoms – the right to eat a wholly natural, healthful food!

The FDA has long banned the sale of raw milk across state lines, and in many states it’s illegal to sell raw milk entirely. (For more information about laws in various US states, please see this link. For information about raw milk in other countries go here.)

Why has a natural food source been banned for sale in so many areas?

Well, they claim raw milk is simply too dangerous to consume and by restricting its sale they are serving the public health and reducing the risk of illness….

Yet shockingly there’s no evidence backing up this claim.

According to CDC data, from 1993 to 2006, only about 116 illnesses a year were linked to raw milk. That amounts to less than .000002 percent of the 76 million people who contract a food-borne illness in the United States each year!

Looking at the evidence, or rather lack thereof, it is quite clear that raw milk has been unfairly singled out and targeted by the FDA, the USDA, and even the FBI, despite the fact that it’s so low on the food-borne illness risk scale it’s hardly measurable.

The recent enforcement efforts against raw milk sales is so disproportionate to the risk it poses to consumers that it defies all logic.

Is the Ban on Raw Milk Unconstitutional?

Raw milk enthusiasts and raw dairy suppliers began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA, claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional.

The rebuttal received from the FDA was shocking to say the least. It contained the following outrageous statements, which make it very clear they believe you have   no right  to natural, unadulterated food:

Live free, drink raw milk.

“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”

The FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render the FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.”

“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”

With these assertions, the FDA essentially claims to have the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing, and make it a crime for you to seek it out.

This is simply unacceptable.

Raw Milk Safety Standards – Actually HIGHER than Those for Pasteurized Milk

It’s essential to understand the reasons why most dairy is pasteurized in the first place.

The dairy cows used to produce much of the pasteurized dairy sold in the United States are raised in such unsanitary conditions that it affects the cows’ health and hence the quality of their milk.

Factory farming conditions are the reason why the milk has to be pasteurized in the first place. If it wasn’t, it simply would not be safe to drink. This fact is also what prevents the conventional dairy industry from competing with smaller organic farms.

In terms of quality and nutritional content of the milk, you simply cannot compare the milk produced by factory farms to that of organic farm that raise their cattle on grasses and let them out to pasture. These cows are healthy, and produce high quality, uncontaminated milk that does not require pasteurization to kill off dangerous pathogens.

Still, despite the fact that grass-fed organically-raised cows are at a distinct advantage, from the get-go when it comes to the quality of their milk, organic dairy farms in most states still must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.

California, specifically, (where raw milk is legal) has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption.

So, if it’s not really about food safety, what’s all the hubbub about?

In a word: money.

The conventional dairy industry, realizing that consumers are flocking toward raw milk because of its health benefits, has redoubled their efforts to quench raw milk sales.

You might think that if raw dairy became attractive enough the dairy industry would simply follow suit and begin producing raw products to meet the demand. Alas… this is virtually impossible because of the way their overcrowded farms are run.

You simply CANNOT drink factory farmed milk raw. It would be extremely unsafe. Their business depends on pasteurization, and that is why their powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government agencies to keep raw milk bans in full force.

Big Dairy simply cannot compete, so to maintain their market share, they’re employing dirty tactics to destroy the competition instead.

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband.

Related articles

• Setbacks and Bizarre Turns in the Raw Milk Saga (libertycrier.com)
• Baylen Linnekin on the Fight for the Right to Choose Raw Milk (reason.com)
• Setbacks and Bizarre Turns in the Raw Milk Saga (txwclp.org)
• Raw milk appeal breaking news in TO (thebovine.wordpress.com)
• Sheriff Brad Rogers takes on the Feds in defense of Elkhart County Dairy Farmer

Advertisements

Amash Responds to White House Concerns

Tags

4th Amendment, Concerns, FACTS, Freedoms, Government Overreach, Intrusion, Invasive, Justin Amash, Stand Up, TRUTH

Myth v. Fact: Amash-Conyers Amendment

and NSA Surveillance

• MYTH 1: The Amash-Conyers amendment is a “blunt approach [and] is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process.”—Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary
• Fact: The Amash-Conyers amendment is a modest proposal to rein in among the most troubling NSA surveillance that has been disclosed so far.

The Amash-Conyers amendment ends NSA’s blanket collection of Americans’ telephone records. It does this by requiring the FISA court under Sec. 215 to order the production of records that pertain only to a person under investigation.

The amendment does not defund NSA. It does not defund all NSA surveillance under the Patriot Act’s Sec. 215. It does not require a warrant for NSA to get Americans’ car reservations, hotel receipts, or telephone records. NSA does not even have to suspect that a crime has occurred. The amendment simply requires that there be a reasonable connection between the documents sought and the person under investigation. Far from blunt, the Amash-Conyers amendment is narrow and modest and is only a first step towards protecting Americans’ records from NSA surveillance.

There’s some irony in being criticized for not having an “informed, open, or deliberative” debate by the very people and groups who have obscured how NSA’s surveillance programs work. Over the last two months, the public and especially Congress have been given significant information about the activity at issue here: the suspicionless, blanket surveillance of ordinary Americans’ telephone records. NSA and the intelligence committees have hosted numerous classified and unclassified hearings, including an extraordinary four-hour seminar with NSA director Keith Alexander yesterday. Congress has been given ample opportunity to consider the question: Does Congress oppose the suspicionless collection of every American’s phone records?

• MYTH 2: The Amash-Conyers amendment prevents the bulk collection of data on foreigners.
• Fact: The Amash-Conyers amendment does not restrict the surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications in any way.

FISA simply does not apply to the surveillance of purely foreign communications. See 50 U.S.C. § 1802. FISA court orders under Sec. 215 cover local telephone calls (wholly within the U.S.) and calls between the U.S. and abroad. In other words, NSA’s Sec. 215 phone surveillance program covers only calls in which at least one side of the conversation is in the U.S. Because foreign-to-foreign communications are beyond the scope of the Sec. 215 surveillance program, those communications are not addressed by the Amash-Conyers amendment.

• MYTH 3: The Amash-Conyers amendment raises constitutional concerns.
• Fact: The Amash-Conyers amendment is entirely constitutional, and despite allegations of “concerns,” no one really believes the amendment is unconstitutional. In fact, the Amash-Conyers amendment helps restore Fourth Amendment protections of Americans’ phone records.

The Amash-Conyers amendment allows NSA to execute FISA court orders only if the orders limit the collection of documents to those documents that pertain to a person under a Patriot Act investigation. The amendment does not place a mandate on the FISA court; the amendment couldn’t even if that was Mr. Amash’s intention because the FISA court is not funded through the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Although the Amash-Conyers amendment does not require the FISA court to include specific language in its order, it is important to note that Sec. 215 already requires the FISA court to include at least five sets of specific limitations in its court orders. See 50 U.S.C. § 1861(c). Reading the current language in Sec. 215 reveals that this “constitutional concern” is wholly without merit.

• MYTH 4: Americans don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone records.
• Fact: Americans do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone records, and the Supreme Court appears poised to rule definitively on that issue.

Proponents of NSA’s suspicionless surveillance like to say that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone records. The Fourth Amendment reads, in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” The collection of every American’s telephone records certainly is a “seizure” of those records. And ordinary Americans believe the intimate details of their phone calls are private.

Smith v. Maryland, a case the Supreme Court decided more than three decades ago, is not clearly applicable to NSA’s suspicionless surveillance. The person whose data was collected in that case was suspected of wrongdoing before the data collection, and the technology of that era did not allow for the type of mass record surveillance and retention that we have today. In United States v. Jones, a case from last year that held certain government GPS tracking unconstitutional, Supreme Court justices began to rethink privacy in the age of digital technology.
If proponents of NSA blanket surveillance are right, if Americans lose constitutional protections when they make a call or send an e-mail, then any data stored in “the cloud” is fair game for the government without a warrant. Do we think it’s good policy to have every iPhone picture stored in iCloud subject to warrantless government confiscation? Is that reasonable?

• MYTH 5: The Amash-Conyers amendment would take away a tool that has proved effective in fighting terrorism.
• Fact: Proponents of NSA’s blanket collection of Americans’ telephone records have not put forward publicly a single, solid example of a “success” under the program.

The amendment does not take away a tool that has proved effective in the fight against terrorism. The administration claims that surveillance conducted under FISA Sec. 702, including the PRISM program, has disrupted terrorist plots, including the New York subway plot. The Amash-Conyers amendment does not address FISA Sec. 702 in any way. The amendment concerns Patriot Act Sec. 215 alone, not Sec. 702. The administration’s one and only public example of a Sec. 215 “success” is the conviction of a taxi driver for sending money to a Somali group. Reports suggest that the Somali group posed no direct threat to the U.S., the investigation did not uncover an imminent threat, and the data could have been obtained without Sec. 215. For that “success,” the government has collected billions of Americans’ records.

TO SUPPORT AMASH-CONYERS AMENDMENT CLICK HERE FOR YOUR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE’S PHONE NUMBER.

When LIARS lead…

Tags

Bill of Rights, Cold War, Constitution, Don, Don't Tread on Me, East Germany, Fascism, Freedom, German Democratic Republic - East Germany, Germany, History, Lying Unacceptable, Patriot, Politics of Germany, Tea Party, TRUTH, United State

If the truth is what sets us free, what does it mean to live in a society where truth is absent?

The danger to America is not a single politician with ill intent. Or even a group of them. The most dangerous thing any nation faces is a citizenry capable of trusting a liar to lead them.

“Almost all current events in the affairs of governments and nations have their parallels and precedents in the past,” American President Harry Truman wrote, “without an understanding of history, we are doomed to repeat our collective past.” Has any leader’s lies from the past dramatically shaped people’s destiny?

The Nazi’s, who comprised less than 10% of the German population, compelled millions of people to head for gas chambers in a docile manner. 10 MILLION PEOPLE! How did they do THAT? The Nazis were overwhelmingly outnumbered. They could easily have been overpowered. Why didn’t people resist?

The answer is breathtakingly simple. It is a method still being used by some elected leaders to achieve various goals today.

THEY LIED.

Adolf Eichmann, known as “The Master”, set about implementing the “Final Solution” as if he were the president of a multinational corporation. His intricate stories, were designed to ensure the cooperation of the condemned (but unknowing) Jews. Accompanied by an entourage of no more than thirty local men — mostly unarmed -Eichmann would address the crowd in a strong, clear voice.

This is what he said:

“Jews: At last, it can be reported to you that the Russians are advancing on our eastern front. I apologize for the hasty way we brought you into our protection. Unfortunately, there was little time to explain. You have nothing to worry about. We want only the best for you. You will leave here shortly and be sent to very fine places indeed. You will work there, your wives will stay at home, and your children will go to school. You will have wonderful lives. We will all be terrible crowded on the trains, but the journey is short. Men? Please keep your families together and board the railcars in an orderly manner. Quickly now, my friends, we must hurry!”

Auschwitz concentration camp, arrival of Hungarian Jews, Summer 1944 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Jewish husbands and fathers were relieved by the explanation and comforted by the fact that there weren’t more armed soldiers. Fear of “heinous Russian Communists” had been pounded over the media to the masses for months. Relieved that the authorities were looking out for their best interests, grown, strong men, who could have resisted, instead trustingly helped their families into the rail cars. The containers, designed to transport eight cows, were each packed with a minimum of one hundred human beings and quickly padlocked.

At that moment, they were lost.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,” said Thomas Jefferson, “. . . . The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

History shows that any people who are sheep-like in following their leadership (so long as their personal self-interests are satisfied) may one day awaken to find that their nation has changed in dramatic ways.

-Do YOU think lying to get elected is acceptable? Especially when you believe the candidate’s intention is to get elected to do GOOD WORKS?

-Who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”?

-Would truth be a starting point for telling the difference?

-What is our nation’s course? Do you believe that one can determine a probable destination by examining the direction in which we are traveling? Where are we headed?

The only way to know a person who aspires to lead us is to listen to what he says and watch what he does. Frankly, what I think of any current or past leader of the United States is irrelevant. The questions most important to YOU in regard to this subject should be: What criteria do YOU use?

It doesn’t take MANY people to lead a nation in a direction that has serious repercussions on the liberty of OTHERS. Indeed, it has happened, here, in the United States. We have given up liberties for various reasons. WE MAY NEVER GET THEM BACK. And, things could turn even WORSE very rapidly.

Is SOMEONE lying to our country right now?

YOU get to answer that for yourself. My point is that each of us must STOP blindly believing everything someone with an agenda says.

TODAY WITH THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET’S SEARCH ENGINES, it is simple to verify a politicians voting record, see videos of the politician on youtube to check out the politician’s consistency and whether or not he or she keeps his or her promises.

We MUST do our best to change our country’s direction and to put the best people possible in office. People who will DO what they believe is RIGHT and TRUE.

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we MUST DO. ~Leonardo DeVinci

Your life, the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren may depend upon you demanding THE TRUTH and NOTHING LESS.

Related articles

• Why Do We Let Politicians Get Away With Lying? (outsidethebeltway.com)
• A Tidal Wave of Political Liars Lying (jonrappoport.wordpress.com)
• Partisan Politics: Dems and Reps Both Say It’s OK For Their Politicians to Lie to Get Elected (reason.com)
• The Propaganda Society (mike10613.wordpress.com)
• HR 5736 – A Bill to Establish An Orwellian Truth Ministry (independentsentinel.com)
• Astonishing Parallels: Nazi Rhetoric and James Dobson (biblethumpingliberal.com)
• Russian Journalist Exposes Propaganda Lies about Houla Massacre (sjlendman.blogspot.com)
• Why Don’t the Corrupt Players On Wall Street and In D.C. Show Remorse for Their Destructive Actions … And Why Don’t We Stop Them? (washingtonsblog.com)

New Paris: 2nd Friday at Sunnyside Park in Downtown New Paris

Tags

Back Packs, Back to School, Elephant Ears, Family Fun, Family Games, Food, Fun, Ice Cream, Kettle corn, Music, New Paris, Sunnyside Park

Aug 10

■4 p.m. – Noah’s Ark Slide
■4 p.m. – Elephant Ears, Kettle Corn & Ice Cream
■5-7 p.m. – Pork Burger Meal
■6 p.m. – 1st Annual Round Boat Races (winner gets T-shirt & Trophy)
■6 p.m. – 3 on 3 Basketball tournament
■7 p.m. – Corn Hole Tournament (pavilion)
■8 p.m. – Music and “Back to School gift bags” at Park Stage

Related articles

• Fun for the whole family: 2nd Friday, July 13 at Sunnyside Park in downtown New Paris (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)

HOLY COW: The war on milk…

Tags

Amish, Co-ops, Dairy, Dairy Industry, Farming, FBI, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Food Industry, Fundamental Right, Health, Healthy Food, Illegal Substances, Milk, Milk Wars, Monsanto, Organic Farms, Pasteurization, Pasteurized Milk, Raw milk, The Constitution, United States

Illegal substance “partakers”???

Extending for four decades now, the war on drugs has ingrained a certain ideology into society. What was sold as an initiative to get dangerous drugs off the streets has conceived a totalitarian mindset that government has the authority to control everything you eat and drink and, if you disobey, the state can fine you, destroy your property, raid your home and throw you in jail. I’m not talking about cocaine or meth. I’m not even talking about marijuana. I’m talking about milk.

According to Time Magazine , “for some Americans, milk has become a test of their freedom. And they’re not paranoid kooks either; the government really is out to get them, authorizing seizures of bottles and jugs of unpasteurized milk and, in one recent case, a full-on, agents-brandishing-guns raid.”

There is indeed a war going on, and it’s threatening one of your most basic freedoms – the right to eat a wholly natural, healthful food!

The FDA has long banned the sale of raw milk across state lines, and in many states it’s illegal to sell raw milk entirely. (For more information about laws in various US states, please see this link. For information about raw milk in other countries go here.)

Why has a natural food source been banned for sale in so many areas?

Well, they claim raw milk is simply too dangerous to consume and by restricting its sale they are serving the public health and reducing the risk of illness….

Yet shockingly there’s no evidence backing up this claim.

According to CDC data, from 1993 to 2006, only about 116 illnesses a year were linked to raw milk. That amounts to less than .000002 percent of the 76 million people who contract a food-borne illness in the United States each year!

Looking at the evidence, or rather lack thereof, it is quite clear that raw milk has been unfairly singled out and targeted by the FDA, the USDA, and even the FBI, despite the fact that it’s so low on the food-borne illness risk scale it’s hardly measurable.

The recent enforcement efforts against raw milk sales is so disproportionate to the risk it poses to consumers that it defies all logic.

Is the Ban on Raw Milk Unconstitutional?

Raw milk enthusiasts and raw dairy suppliers began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA, claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional.

The rebuttal received from the FDA was shocking to say the least. It contained the following outrageous statements, which make it very clear they believe you have   no right  to natural, unadulterated food:

Live free, drink raw milk.

“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”

The FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render the FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.”

“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”

With these assertions, the FDA essentially claims to have the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing, and make it a crime for you to seek it out.

This is simply unacceptable.

Raw Milk Safety Standards – Actually HIGHER than Those for Pasteurized Milk

It’s essential to understand the reasons why most dairy is pasteurized in the first place.

The dairy cows used to produce much of the pasteurized dairy sold in the United States are raised in such unsanitary conditions that it affects the cows’ health and hence the quality of their milk.

Factory farming conditions are the reason why the milk has to be pasteurized in the first place. If it wasn’t, it simply would not be safe to drink. This fact is also what prevents the conventional dairy industry from competing with smaller organic farms.

In terms of quality and nutritional content of the milk, you simply cannot compare the milk produced by factory farms to that of organic farm that raise their cattle on grasses and let them out to pasture. These cows are healthy, and produce high quality, uncontaminated milk that does not require pasteurization to kill off dangerous pathogens.

Still, despite the fact that grass-fed organically-raised cows are at a distinct advantage, from the get-go when it comes to the quality of their milk, organic dairy farms in most states still must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.

California, specifically, (where raw milk is legal) has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption.

So, if it’s not really about food safety, what’s all the hubbub about?

In a word: money.

The conventional dairy industry, realizing that consumers are flocking toward raw milk because of its health benefits, has redoubled their efforts to quench raw milk sales.

You might think that if raw dairy became attractive enough the dairy industry would simply follow suit and begin producing raw products to meet the demand. Alas… this is virtually impossible because of the way their overcrowded farms are run.

You simply CANNOT drink factory farmed milk raw. It would be extremely unsafe. Their business depends on pasteurization, and that is why their powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government agencies to keep raw milk bans in full force.

Big Dairy simply cannot compete, so to maintain their market share, they’re employing dirty tactics to destroy the competition instead.

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband.

Related articles

• Setbacks and Bizarre Turns in the Raw Milk Saga (libertycrier.com)
• Baylen Linnekin on the Fight for the Right to Choose Raw Milk (reason.com)
• Setbacks and Bizarre Turns in the Raw Milk Saga (txwclp.org)
• Raw milk appeal breaking news in TO (thebovine.wordpress.com)
• Sheriff Brad Rogers takes on the Feds in defense of Elkhart County Dairy Farmer

Richard Mourdock: ‘Praises Indiana Activists’

Tags

Election 2012, Indiana, Indiana Senate Race, Jim DeMint, Mitt Romney, Politics, Rand Paul, Republican, Richard Mourdock, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Texas

Sen. Jim DeMint, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Rand Paul, Senate Candidate Ted Cruz from Texas and Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock from Indiana on FreePac Video. Mourdock is clearly VERY proud of his Indiana supporters.

Highlights include:

• A unanimous prediction of victory for Ted Cruz in the primary and general election
• A hat tip from Richard Mourdock to new media and grassroots activism, and the similarities between his primary and that of Ted Cruz
• Jim DeMint’s strong assertion that Obamacare will be repealed if conservatives take the Senate and White House
• Mike Lee responding to Texas Gov. Rick Perry‘s criticism of outside groups in the Texas Primary … and Jim DeMint’s statement that “every senate race is a national race”.
• Rand Paul addressing whether he will be Mitt Romney‘s VP pick

 FreePAC blogger press conference July 26 2012 from Jeff Reynolds on Vimeo.

Related articles

• Richard Mourdock – “the economy still stinks” (legalinsurrection.com)
• Cruz And Dewhurst Await Results In Tight Texas Senate Primary Race (redalertpolitics.com)
• Step out for Richard Mourdock for Indiana Senate in Saturday’s Culver Parade or Sunday’s Elkhart County 4-H Parade (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)

GOP North Victory Center: Help Pence, Mourdock and Walorski Win in November

Tags

1630 South Nappanee St. Elkhart, 2012 Election, Activism, District 2, Elkhart County, GOP, GOP Victory Center, Help Needed, Indiana, Jackie Walorski, Mike Pence, Most Important Election Ever, Republican, Richard Mourdock, United States, Victory Center, Volunteer, Voting

Indiana Republican candidates and volunteers will use the space at 1630 South Nappanee for phoning voters and to coordinate door-to-door efforts.

There are ONLY 106 days until the National Election. Won’t you PLEASE lend a hand during this critically important time? The most important thing you can to help our GOP candidates is to join us at the GOP Victory Center (1630 South Nappanee Street, Elkhart, IN) to interact with potential voters on the phone to gather information and to help GET PEOPLE OUT TO VOTE.The great news is our GOP campaign’s state-of-the-art telephones makes calling incredibly easy. But it takes folks like you who will devote even just a couple of hours of your free time to FIGHT for core constitutional values and the future of America. I worked at the Victory Center today for just a little over an hour and made 56 calls. It was fun. I’m planning to spend every free moment I can find to work at the Victory Center.

The center is air conditioned. There are drinks and snacks. It’s an opportunity to interact with other GOP supporters and to make new friends. This is probably the most important election of our lifetime. The cause is SO IMPORTANT. Please don’t expect someone else to carry the load.

For our GOP candidates to WIN, these calls MUST be made. Join your friends and neighbors at the North GOP Victory Center and start making calls right away.

For Indiana & America’s future–HattieBelle

 

Ben Parsons, field coordinator of Stand with Jackie, at the North Victory Center. To help Mike Pence, Richard Mourdock or Jackie Walorski at the Victory Center, please call Ben at 574-612-8725 or e-mail him at elkhartvictorycenter@gmail.com.

Related articles

• MUST READ: Checking out the Republicans (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)
• FLASH NEWS: Walorski and Pence coming to Elkhart TODAY! (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)
• Richard Mourdock on Obamacare Standing (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)
• BRIAN HOWEY: What is the agenda for rightward marching GOP? (nwitimes.com)
• AP Headline: ‘Primaries Reflect Conservative Enthusiasm for 2012’ (cnsnews.com)

‘You didn’t build that’

Tags

Achievement, Achiever, Drive, Enterprise, Entrepeneur, Hard Work, Motivation, Obama, Politics, Resolve, Reward

A businessman responds to President Obama…

Nate Beeler illustrates Obama lecturing kids on who is responsible for their business.

Obama Signs Executive Order To Kill Internet

Tags

BarackObama, Emergency management, Executive order, Federal Communications Commission, Federal government of the United States, National security, United State, United States Department of Homeland Security

Related articles

• Another EXECUTIVE ORDER? (elkhartcountygrassrootshub.wordpress.com)
• TYRANNY ALERT: Via Another Executive Order, Obama Seizes Control of all Communication Sytems Including Internet (pumabydesign001.com)
• Can the president switch off the internet? Critics fear new executive order hands Obama too much control over the web (pakalertpress.com)

Open letter to Obama from “We the People” and what you can do TODAY for freedom

Tags

Activism, Constitution, Freedom, Hillary Clinton, Land of the Sea Treaty, Liberty, LOST, NRA, Obama, Politics, Senate, We the People

You can participate in the grassroot’s movement to get our liberties back by calling YOUR SENATORS today:

Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties — the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called Small Arms Treaty.

Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST and the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass.

The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander. Find their phone numbers and contact information HERE.

In a breaking update, 2 of the 20 Republican senators,  McConnell and Toomey, have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty.

The small arms treaty, on the other hand, is facing a much more difficult task in gaining the approval of the Senate. Although it is possible to muster 67 votes to approve,  many Democrats are facing reelection in states where gun rights are important. Although Democrats now have a 53 seat majority. Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the National Rifle Association’s powerful lobby group, said 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian weapons, fearing an infringement of America’s gun rights.

“I am here to announce NRA’s strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense. No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us,” LaPierre said at the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference in New York.

“The only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.”

The UN will be negotiating the Small Arms Treaty throughout the month of July.

Related articles

• Obama Rushing Passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty & the Small Arms Treaty (independentsentinel.com)
• Could UN Treaty Put World (and Iran) In Charge of America’s Gun Owners? (foxnews.com)
• NRA draws red line on UN arms treaty (thehill.com)
• 20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty (updated) (askmarion.wordpress.com)