Pathological Politics – Predatory Partners and Persecuting Patriots

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - the NoisyRoom

In the notorious tradition of Nixon’s Enemies List, Obama is now openly persecuting patriots at every opportunity. He tries to shame them, taint them, marginalize them and if all that doesn’t work, he sends goons after them and either imprisons them or threatens them with imprisonment. He’s using every agency at his disposal, with a special emphasis on the EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC, ATF and Fish and Wildlife authorities. And he has hired a whole governmental ‘army’ to enforce his dictates and go after his enemies. Welcome to the American Stasi.

We have watched how Obama smears those who would dare to donate to Mitt Romney’s campaign. That should make us want to donate even more, not back down and cower in fear. We all know that Obama is determined to be reelected legally or illegally – he doesn’t care. He just wants to hold on to his power, so he can finish what he started – destroying America with his pathological politics of corruption, greed and evil. If the elections don’t suffice, he’ll invent an emergency to ensure his death grip on the throat of America.

Look at how Gibson Guitars has been treated. They have been raided multiple times, but they can’t defend themselves because in the last three years, this administration won’t say what crime they are charging them with. They are destroying a good and honest company that creates jobs and does business production here in America. Their crime – successful capitalism. Something Obama will not tolerate.

Then there are farmers. The EPA is clamping down on the Amish and others who don’t follow every regulation in an effort to put them out of business and it is working. I hear the stealthy, sly footsteps of Cass Sunstein. Soon, very soon, the government will control all our farmland and food. Then if you step out of line, they’ll just starve you to death. Farming on your own property will be illegal. It’s coming – bet on it. Right now they are seizing farmer’s bank accounts. The FDA is now using the terrorist based “Bank Secrecy Act” as justification to invade, investigate and even confiscate the bank accounts of Americans in the agricultural business.

From The Examiner:

The Bank Secrecy Act that came out of the events of 9/11, which has been expanded during the decade long war on terror, is now being used to criminally attack farmers who choose not to use banks as their sole or primary source for monetary transactions. This is especially relevant after the credit crisis of 2008, where many American[s] began withdrawing money from banks after bank solvency came into question.

This banking law, which allows for the unwarranted confiscation and seizure of funds based solely on perceived impropriety, is one of many new policies created under the Bush and Obama administrations to control the public, and the flow of money in the United States. Beginning in 2013, new capital controls are set to be implemented which will make it extremely difficult to move dollars in and out of the country, and more recently, the Obama administration diverted funds from other departments to hire thousands of IRS agents for the new healthcare system that will also commence in 2013.

Ted Nugent on Regulations

Glenn Beck – We Are All Criminals Now

Now, we turn to Ted Nugent, who has been all over the news as of late. Evidently Obama has had Ted Nugent in his sights for at least two years and probably much longer. Nugent was charged with breaking a law – of which the judge hadn’t even heard – while hunting black bear in Alaska. But you can bet the Feds did and they brought charges hoping to snare Nugent. But that didn’t work out as they intended – Nugent accepted that he ‘unknowingly’ broke the law and the sentence carried the same weight as jaywalking, a misdemeanor offense. They tried to snag him in California and accused him of baiting a deer. A total falsehood and you’d have to be a moron to do it since he was airing the episode on TV. They stormed three of his friends’ homes and then searched a room not covered by the search warrant. They found a set of brass knuckles and told Nugent’s friend they would drop the felony charge if he would help them ‘get’ Nugent. Fortunately Ted has very good friends. But they took all kinds of stuff from their homes.

Now, they have made Nugent slaughter his pigs in Michigan – labeling them as feral. Since when is livestock you keep in a pen ‘feral?’ Obviously they either don’t know or more likely, don’t care what the definition is. They were the wrong color and thus deemed ‘feral’ and Nugent was forced to slaughter them. It’s tempting to draw conclusions about motives related to winning points with the Dearbornistan locals, given that the “reason” for slaughtering the pigs is clearly a pretext; one wonders to oneself, could squeezing pig farmers be calibrated to curry favor with a Muslim community?

He’s also been persecuted for his Oryx in Texas as well. They are harassing him about raising these animals when he brought them back from the brink of extinction. A three legged little one was born and he is not being allowed to put it out of its misery. It will die a slow and painful death. How is that compassion? If he puts it down, it’s a felony.

Someone high up would not allow Nugent to attend a SEAL’s funeral when it was the hero’s final wish. His concerts have been cancelled in several cases as well. The Feds interviewed him over comments he made at an NRA conference recently. He was cleared, but I guess free speech is no longer very ‘free’ in this country. Nugent is a good man – a patriotic man. That’s a lot more than you can say about Obama and his thugs.

This isn’t just about Ted Nugent folks – it’s about each and every one of us. They are coming after the bloggers, the patriots, small businesses, you name it. There is no way we can avoid violating one of these bogus laws. It’s only a matter of time. Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution – it means nothing to him. They are coming and we had better stand together, or we will all hang separately as patriots. The way Nugent is being treated is absolutely disgraceful.

From Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal:

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

We all know of Obama’s Enemies List, but do you know who his predatory partners are? Along with Communists and radicals, he has a special fondness for the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he has opened the front door of the White House and has told them to make themselves at home. These are the evil asshats who support and fund Hamas. These are Islamic terrorists of the ilk that carried out 9-11 and Obama embraces them while persecuting American patriots.

Rumors of War III

Obama is not even subtle about it. They have removed all references to radical Islam in federal publications. They allow Shariah Law to be carried out on American soil. Obama’s best friend is the Prime Minister of Turkey who gives him advice on his daughters. You see, it doesn’t matter whether Obama is a Muslim or not, his father was. Obama has Islamic street cred. It even gives him a basis for using Taqiyya against Americans. Obama is actively and aggressively promoting Islam around the planet and especially here at home. The only thing that matches his love of Islam, is his hatred of Israel.

If one is known by who his friends and enemies are, then Obama’s predatory partners and the patriots he persecutes are screaming volumes at us. It’s clear that his campaign of pathological politics and communism is on a set of tracks that leads somewhere we dare not go.

How Prolonged Ingestion of Fluoridated Drinking Water Damages The Brain

"The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system," concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia, reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride."

"Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident," they write.

Fluoride was first added to water in the United States in the 1940s to help prevent tooth decay in children 8 years and under. These assumptions were later dismissed by hundreds of scientific publications which showed that internal consumption of fluoridated water had no effect on tooth decay.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says dental fluorosis is highest among adolescents between the ages of 12 an 15. One reason for the increase in fluorosis: Americans are now exposed to fluoride from a variety of sources, including toothpaste, mouth rinses and prescription supplements, the Department of Health and Human Services says.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage every system and function of the body.

"Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF. "We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children's teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can't see the harm it's doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking," says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain's physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

"Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth," they write.

Animal studies show fluoride's toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer's disease, Valdez-Jimenez's team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that "A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ." (Biological Trace Element Research)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." And, "Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease."

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 and then was fired for doing so.

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years -- the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska. This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

Anti-fluoride activist Christina Welsh says the government should end all fluoridation everywhere. "It is a complete fraud to suggest that fluoride reduces dental caries when this has never been proven. The opposite is true, fluoride has been found to cause cancer, osteoporosis and DNA damage among dozens of other illnesses," she said.

L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association Robotry said that "no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished ... And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that ... The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition."

Source: PreventDisease.com  Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

Related:

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Video:  Fluoride Truth Hits the TV in Australia

Video: Caller Ask About Fluoride being Added to Food - Alex Jones Tv

Videos:  Food:  The Ultimate Secret Exposed

Obama appoints Monsanto's vice president Michael Taylor as senior adviser to the commissioner at the FDA...

Who Owns Obama and FDA... None Other Than Monsanto!

Obama appoints Monsanto's vice president Michael Taylor as senior adviser to the commissioner at the FDA... Folks, it just keeps getting more insane... ~ Jeffrey Smith

Michael Taylor was just appointed senior adviser to the commissioner of the FDA!

This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety.

He "had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior adviser to the commissioner of the FDA.

He is now America's food safety czar! This is no joke."
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned.

Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies...

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens...

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history.

That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh...

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH.

A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

It was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?...

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such.

Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff...

As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus...

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size.

This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio.

Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration!

Jeffrey Smith - August 15, 2011 - posted at ConspiracyPlant

*** Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating  and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing (GMO Set). Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Also checkout: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:51pm.

Related:

Fascist Control Over Our Food Supply?  The S.510 Food Safety Scam

Would you vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

Soros and Food Safety

Deal Making, Arm Twisting and Sellouts Until: Senate Unanimously Passes Food Safety Bill

Frankenfood Coming Soon to a Store Near You

Food Laws – Forcing people to globalize

Is FDA Handing Out Gag Orders to Journalists Now?

March 15, 2011

The current FDA administration is blocking reporters from sharing agency pre-publication releases with experts to obtain outside comment. Help us protect medical freedom of speech!

Many prominent organizations and agencies like FDA release information with an embargo on it. In other words, news organizations will agree not to publish this information until a certain date. This gives the journalists time to research and write their articles, so that their more detailed investigation—often a deeper perspective on a complex story—can appear at the same time as the organization’s press conference.

The journalists customarily share the information with other experts in the field to get a more impartial perspective. These experts are are always apprised of the embargo, must agree to its terms, and fall under the same confidentiality agreement as the media organization.

A few weeks ago, as the FDA was about to unveil a new approval process for medical devices, the agency stated that news organizations must not “call around and get comment ahead of [time]. Needless to say, that would break the embargo.” This is completely contrary to established industry practice. As the blog Embargo Watch recently stated, “Without that, journalists become stenographers. If that’s what the FDA—a public agency—wants, they need to rethink. And if they insist that this is what they mean by a journalistic embargo, then I’d suggest reporters stop agreeing to them. There’s really no benefit to reporters or the public, only to the FDA.”

In response to the FDA’s statement, the nonprofit Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ)—the nation’s largest group of health reporters—sent a strongly worded letter to the FDA, objecting to the administration’s “highly unusual” new policy: “[This] restriction…rewrote a longstanding compact between reporters and various public and scientific organizations. It also hampered or delayed reporters’ ability to fully inform the public about what the FDA is doing with taxpayers’ money.”

The group continued, “Reporters who want to be competitive on a story will essentially have to agree to write only what the FDA wants to tell the world, without analysis or outside commentary.”

As an example of what the FDA is trying to accomplish with this outrageous new policy, take a look at this in-depth article published the day the aforementioned medical device approval announcement was made: a major policy change with potentially huge safety ramifications was covered in seventy-seven little words. Dull, absurdly brief, and decidedly uncontroversial—exactly what the FDA wanted.

Please send your message to the FDA, and ask the agency drop its embargo policy! We must make sure that the FDA allows expert review of its decisions and documents released on an embargoed basis, consistent with customary practices in the media industry. Please take action now!

TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE FDA

Click THIS LINK to go to the Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter.

We’d also love to hear your comments about this article—just add your thoughts below—but remember that the messages below are only seen by our ANH-USA readers and not Congress, the FDA, etc.

Source:  Alliance for Natural Health USA  - Cross-posted at True Health Is True Wealth

Related:

Watchdog Group Confuses Our Consumer Activists With “Well-Connected Lobbyists”!
A few weeks ago, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report representing ANH-USA (and many other organizations’ efforts to protect natural health consumer rights) as “another disturbing example of pay-to-play in Washington.” Huh? Come again?

Food Safety Bill Quietly Scheduled for a Vote on House Floor Call Your Representative Now!

HR2749 is set on the House Suspension Calendar for a vote Tuesday or Wednesday of this week— WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL MAY BE MODIFIED BUT THE NEW LANGUAGE HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED!

A bill considered on the suspension calendar means no amendments are allowed and only 40 minutes of debate is permitted equally divided between the opponents and proponents of the bill.

A bill of this scale needs to be carefully and extensively debated and open for amendments! The implications from such an expansive bill could be detrimental to consumers’ access to healthy foods and to the prosperity of small business owners.
Since we have not seen the revised bill, we only know what the bill originally looked like—which wasn’t good. Our primary concerns remain:

(1) establishing an annual $500 user fee that subsidizes giant food processors at the expense of small and family-owned businesses which is simply unfair;
(2) lumping small farms and processors into the same category as large agribusiness operations, and creating complicated regulations without special rules for small businesses;
(3) allowing the FDA to directly regulate farming practices—be it a large commercial farm or a small organic operation; and
(4) increasing the FDA’s authority dramatically with no corresponding increase in oversight of the agency such as unlimited access to any and all records—without cause—and the ability to impose substantial criminal and civil fines—without a showing of harm—for administrative violations.

How can a Representative thoroughly review over 100 pages and have an informed vote with only 40 minutes of debate?

Please telephone and/or email your Representatives to voice your concerns—let her/him know that this bill needs a thorough review and should be open for amendments!

Thank you for taking the time!
Tami L. Wahl
Legislative Director

American Association for Health Freedom

Call the switchboard for the house of Representatives in Washington today... your Congressperson and Nancy Pelosi and tell them "NO on HR2749!!!

1-202-224-3121- Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact

Stop New Bill (HR2749) Gives FDA Unheard-of Power over Small Farmers, Food and Supplement Producers

A new, long-awaited food safety bill is now before the US House of Representatives. It is the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, or FSEA. Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D–CA) and John Dingell (D–MI), the FSEA is meant to address food safety concerns. But as you will see, much of it is not about food safety at all. Food safety issues have arisen from large agricultural operations. But this bill places its harshest burdens on small food producers and supplement producers.

Take Action and let your Representative know you DO NOT support this bill

The Food Safety Enhancement Act:

• gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unprecedented scope, authority, and power over small farmers, food producers, and supplement producers, including the power to use vague language to intimidate and threaten;
• imposes unjustifiably harsh criminal and civil penalties for even administrative violations; and

• places undue economic hardship on small and mid-sized farms and food facilities (both organic and conventional), which could easily drive many of them out of business, and lead to monopoly control of food by large corporations.

Also known as the Waxman–Dingell bill, the Food Safety Enhancement Act has a number of provisions that would directly affect many of AAHF’s members. Although much of the bill’s language is vague—and, some worry, deliberately deceptive—it is clear that the FSEA provides for the following:

Sharply increased criminal and civil penalties for violations of FDA regulations.
The penalties include prison terms of up to ten years (jail time is currently capped at three years), and fines of up to $100,000 for individuals and $7.5 million for corporations, regardless of their size. The kicker is that these penalties are potentially applicable no matter what way you violate the FDA’s rules.
The application of those penalties to any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is knowingly "adulterated or misbranded."

To our ears, “adulterated” means that it doesn’t meet good manufacturing practices, that the food itself is somehow tainted or injurious to health, or contains an ingredient that presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness. And “misbranded” suggests deliberate misstatements about the efficacy of a product.
In FDA-speak, however, these words take on completely different meanings. For example, a food or supplement may be “adulterated” if some vague FDA rule is deemed by the FDA not to have been followed. “Misbranded” can mean that the producer makes a completely true statement about the product but without FDA permission. A cherry producer who cites peer-reviewed scientific research from prestigious universities on the health benefits of cherries would, in FDA-speak, have engaged in “false” and actionable “misbranding” which suddenly turns the cherries into drugs. Producers, of course, have the right to take cherries through the new drug approval process! In this and other ways, the FDA already censors science and quashes constitutionally protected free speech.

In this new bill, any violation of the new administrative requirements could make a product adulterated and/or misbranded. That is, an administrative violation (such as not keeping records exactly as required) that harms no one carries exactly the same penalty as a violation in which a product is adulterated during the manufacturing process and poses a significant risk of illness or ends up killing people.
The dramatic increase in jail time and fines will make supplement production an even riskier proposition than it is today. Supplement producers have to put some information on the bottle. They try their best to satisfy FDA rules, which can only be described as gray, not black and white. Now if they get it wrong in the eyes of the FDA, the potential penalties will be extremely severe.

Many on Capitol Hill are under the impression that the bill pertains only to food, but the FSEA language specifically names supplements as well, and this will have a huge potential impact on any small company brave enough to continue their manufacture and sale.

Large companies will probably be unaffected because they can afford the extensive legal staff needed. Moreover, the FDA does not try to put large companies with political clout out of business, much less put their executives in jail. General Mills (the manufacturer of Cheerios) was recently cited by the FDA for an unapproved health claim, even though the company was reporting good science. Under the new bill, General Mills could be fined $7.5 million, but based on past FDA performance this would be unlikely. If a tiny company were cited, the exact same fine would be applicable and the likelihood of being exacted would be much greater.

FDA control of farming standards and practices
Many people on Capitol Hill seem to believe that farms are exempted from the FSEA’s scope. That is false. On the contrary: the bill would empower the FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the FDA, which knows nothing about farming, right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. Specifically, it allows the FDA to set “scientific and risk-based standards” for the use of fertilizers, harvesting and processing methods, transportation, etc. Any non-compliance means the food is to be considered “adulterated” (with fines of up to $100,000 per individual and $7.5 million per corporation, and a jail term of up to ten years).

For example, based on both its public statements and its record, the FDA is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk (even in cheese) and would like to ban its distribution. If HR2749 becomes law, the agency would have much greater scope to go after raw milk than it did before, particularly targeting raw milk producers whose products cross state lines.

Raw milk is just one example. The FDA can decide that it doesn’t like anything under this bill. And we can be sure that large producers will have easy access to the agency to explain why competing products from small producers should be banned.
Moreover, the bill would give the FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area. Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency could halt all movement of all food in that geographic area.

The language is incredibly vague and does not distinguish between industrial-sized operations, organic farms, or smaller operations—the FDA could easily use its new authority to set requirements that only large corporate farmers can meet. While farms are exempt from some sections of the FSEA legislation, they are explicitly included in this all-important section. Smaller farmers who can’t meet the new FDA requirements will simply go out of business, unfairly creating monopolies for the huge corporations. We believe the FDA should not have this kind of authority over farms at all, but this one-size-fits-all approach has significant economic implications and could destroy a sustainable farm trying to comply with an inappropriate commercial standard.

An unequal burden for smaller and local food facilities
A food facility—defined as any factory, warehouse, or establishment that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food—must, under the new bill, register and pay an annual registration fee of $500 (and that fee would be adjusted upward with inflation). Although farms and restaurants are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly, and people making small batches of foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive start-up and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. A flat fee that does not take into account the size of the facility is good news for giant agribusinesses, but may represent a serious economic burden for some smaller companies struggling to make ends meet. How could the FDA think that the same fee (and penalties) are as appropriate for Mom-and-Pop operations as for ConAgra?

Moreover, FSEA provides for mandated electronic registration, which may be an issue for smaller producers, and is certainly a problem for Amish farmers, for whom the electronic filing requirement violates their religious beliefs. Failing to register a food facility would constitute “misbranding”; violators—you guessed it—would be subject to fines of up to $100,000 if the business is individually owned, $7.5 million if corporately owned, and/or ten years in jail.
Warrantless searches by the FDA

Under the bill, the FDA will have full authority to conduct random, warrantless searches of all records dealing with any aspect of a company’s production, manufacture, or distribution process. Under current law, the FDA only has access to records if it has “a reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated” and presents “a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.” Under the FSEA, however, the FDA has access to all records, at any time, and without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Warrantless searches are a powerful weapon of intimidation and harassment.

The bill also extends FDA’s authority to access records of a farm and restaurant—both of which are exempt from FDA’s reach under current law. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of their customers.

The FSEA also gives the FDA complete control over recalls, seizures, detentions and quarantines—with no judicial oversight. For example, FSEA lowers the standard FDA must meet in order to conduct an administrative detention. Currently they must demonstrate “credible evidence” that a food presents a health threat before an administrative detention is allowed; the FSEA standard is “any reason to believe that an article of food is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of this Act.”

Burdensome administrative requirements, including a new food tracing system
The FSEA requires all facilities, farms, and restaurants to implement new hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls, food safety plans, and an extensive record maintenance program—again, without taking into account the differences between small facilities and large commercial facilities.

The FSEA also mandates an extensive food tracing system for all farms, or facilities that produce, process, or transport food, even if the food does not cross state lines, though at least “direct sales by farms” (i.e., sales directly to stores, restaurants, or consumers) are exempt—which means that most vendors who participate in a farmer’s market would not be affected. Each person in the production, manufacturing, processing, packing, transportation, or storage chain must “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food” and must “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.”

The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it's far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. Small farms may find this trackback system costly and time-consuming.

If the FSEA passes, only big businesses and large corporate farms will matter
With FDA having such vast control, authority, and access, globalization and harmonization of food quality is a step closer. HR2749 does not make any allowances for small- to mid-sized farms or facilities, which could mean economic ruin, closure, or dependence on large corporations or foreign food supply sources.

Let’s say you’re a small organic farmer, and you have a roadside stand on your own property. If this bill passes, you would now have to follow federally established standards for growing your produce, or your food would be considered adulterated. You could not, of course, say anything about the scientific basis for organic produce being healthier than conventionally farmed produce.

Further, you would be required to make your business records available to FDA inspectors. The inspectors would have the power to show up unannounced without a warrant to search your records without any evidence whatsoever that you have committed a violation of the law. If you refuse to let the inspector see your records, you would be guilty of adulteration.

If you’re a farmer who sells products direct to consumers, you would be forced to give the FDA any customer information you have in your records. No more customer privacy. Should you refuse, you’d face up to ten years’ imprisonment. The civil fines could be up to $100,000 if you’re an individual or $7.5 million if you incorporated your family farm as a business.

There is one bright note in a rider to the bill: HR2749 at least imposes a deadline on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to notify Congress by December 31, 2009, of the final determination on the safety of BPA (Bisphenol A) in food and beverage containers.

Please take action immediately!

We need every concerned American to contact his or her congressional representatives immediately and ask that HR2749 be defeated or, at the very least, amended.

Click here to be taken to our Action Alert and contact your Representative!

1-202-224-3121 – House Switchboard

1-202-225-3121 – House Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact

If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

Source: True Health Is True Wealth /American Association for Health

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." …Henry Kissenger

Related Resources:

• Food Safety Bill HR 2749 Requires Immediate Opposition
• Media Blasts Oprah for Supporting Alernative Medicine
• The Drug Story
• What You Don't Know Can Hurt You - Knowledge Is Power When It Comes To HealthcareThe Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS
• Big Red Juice
• Sanoviv Medical Center
• Welcome to Obama Theatre
• Suzanne Somers on the Schwarzbein Principle - Bioidentical Hormone
• Michael Pollan's Prescription to Barack Obama
• Power Grab

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)

What we are looking at:

$600 Billion in tax increases and $400 Billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as the number of Babyboomers added to the rolls increases daily… while we already owe a Trillion in interest on the money the government (Obama Administration) has already borrowed and printed to this point, before this nationalized health-care proposal.

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.

Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

Online Exchanges

The legislation would establish online exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Some Democrats also are backing creation of a government-run program to expand coverage to the uninsured. The issue is the subject of bipartisan negotiations with Republican who oppose the so-called public option.

Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.

Rangel said House Democrats want to avoid the deeper cuts to projected spending under Medicare and Medicaid that Obama has been putting forth. House Democrats want to achieve cost-savings by cuts in payments to private insurance plans under Medicare.

Covering the Costs

Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.

That won’t be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising “additional sources of revenue.” In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

Obama plans to give a speech Monday in Chicago to the American Medical Association as part of his campaign to build up support for what could be the biggest changes to healthcare policy since Medicare was established in 1965.

Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

“We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors,” he said. “Let them get a good feel for the coverage.”

By: Laura Litvan in Washington at: llitvan@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: June 12, 2009 19:05 EDT

Source: Fox Nation

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• How To Stop Socialized Health Care
• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat’s Health care bill
• What a Week With Healthcare
• Kennedy Healthcare Plan Meets Resistance – Full of Pork
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Rationing Healthcare
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• British HealthCare - Don't Treat The Old!! - And Senator Coburn Warns Same For USA
• Universal Health and Old People
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

Stop the Insanity!!

Updated: If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.

Contact info for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Please contact your representative, your Senator and Speaker Pelosi on this matter and others as they arise (almost daily these days).

Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell the Drugs!

In 2005, an up-and-coming pharmaceutical company made a big mistake: they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug only to discover that the only active ingredient of the drug, pyridoxamine, was really a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost to consumers in the form of a dietary supplement, and has always been available in commonly consumed foods such as chicken and brewer’s yeast.

We’re taught as children that when you make a mistake, you should own up to it and face the consequences. Apparently the pharmaceutical company in question, Biostratum, Inc., has yet to learn that lesson. Instead of owning up to their mistake, Biostratum tried to game the system to their advantage by asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine.

Sadly, Biostratum’s desparate ploy to save their investment worked. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement. They denied the request to declare products containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” but instead they declared that such products are not dietary supplements at all—claiming they are excluded from the definition of dietary supplements under the “prior market clause” [21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)] and so may not be marketed as such.

Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?

This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occuring substances. On October 17, 2005, the FDA banned information about the health benefits of cherries from appearing on websites—scientifically proven benefits, such as tart cherries’ ability to reduce the risk of colon cancer because of the anthocyanins and cyanidin contained in the cherry. Cherries, according to the latest research, help ease the pain of arthritis and gout; reduce risk factors for heart disease and diabetes; help regulate the body’s natural sleep patterns, aid with jet lag, prevent memory loss, and delay the aging process; and helps lower body fat and cholesterol—risk factors associated with heart disease. Moreoever, Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found that tart cherry anthocyanins reduced painful inflammation as well as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indomethacin.

When the 2005 ban was instituted, the FDA sent warning letters to twenty-nine companies that market cherry products. In these letters, they ordered the companies to stop publicizing scientific data about cherries. According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.

But fresh fruit and vegetables are not the FDA’s only target: As we reported in this newsletter recently, General Mills was recently issued a warning letter by the FDA for illegally marketing Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. The problem was the claim on the cereal box that Cheerios can lower cholesterol 4% in six weeks, and the statement on their website that “diets rich in whole grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease.” The letter, dated May 5, 2009, called the above claims “serious violations” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable regulations.

FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.Note that the FDA isn't disputing the claim. It's disputing the company's right to make the claim.

As one newspaper columnist humorously put it, “One of these things is not like the others: morphine, penicillin, aspirin, Cheerios. Most drugs, if taken improperly, will kill the consumer or cause substantial bodily harm. An entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting will harm or kill. If Cheerios is a drug, therefore, one should be able to commit suicide by consuming the entire box.”

For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.

In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.

Source: American Association for Health Freedom

Related Articles:

• The Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• HPV Vaccine Dangers
• 32 Girls Have Died
• Creating a Generation of Drugged Kids
• Why Does the FDA Maintain a Conspiracy of Silence about the Health Benefits
• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS
• Sanoviv Medical Center
• Big Red Juice
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights In "The Land of the Free", is Natural Medicine One of Your Freedoms?

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

A Country Gone Crazy... Is $17 Bill in Budget Cuts a Lot or a Little?

Our World News report:

-- jpt - May 08, 2009 6:40 AM

Source:  ABC News/Glenn Beck

A Country Gone Crazy... An Administration Out of Control

• $17 Billion in Budget Cuts Is Now, That The Debt And Budgets Have Doubled And Tripled, A Substantial Amount to Save, Says Obama. During The Campaign When McCain Said He Would Cut Earmarks by $18 Billion, Obama Said It Was a Drop In The Bucket.
• With All The Violence at the Border, The Warning Of The Swine Flu Epidemic Possibilities, On-Going Terrorist Threats, And The Flo of Drugs And Guns Across The Border, Funds for Border Security Have Been Cut From Budget
• Border Fence Not To Be Built Even Though Money Has Been Allotted???
• Funds For Families Of Fallen Policemen Cut
• Tax Cheat Tim Geithner Going to Head-up Task Force To Aggressively Collect Taxes
• Peek At New Health Plan - People Will Pay Co-Pay For Their Employer Supplied Healthcare (An Employment Benefit) And Then "Taxed" on Their Benefits to Pay For Those Who Can't Afford Healthcare
• Evidence, From Homeland Security, Shows That Nancy Pelosi Knew About EIT, But “They” Want To Prosecute People From The Last Administration Like A Banana Republic.  
• Hmmm… What Happened To Obama’s Promise Of Tax Cuts And No New Taxes… Cap and Trade, Healthcare Coverage Tax, Higher Taxes On The Wealthy Who Create Jobs In The United States
• Billions In Bailouts To Save The Car Companies And Now Chrysler Will Essentially Be An Italian Company After Filing For Bankruptcy… After Getting the Bailout Money and Today It Was Announce That GM Will Be Creating More Jobs And Making More Cars… In Mexico And China
• Former Employees Of ACORN (Part Of The Board Of Directors) Are Coming Forward And Admitting To Voter Fraud and Internal Fraud.  Say ACORN Is Getting Federal And Bailout Money Through Sub-Companies.
• Leaders of Freddie And Fannie Were At Acorn Offices During Their Bailout Period.
• Security At Our Nation's Ports Is One Of the Proposed Budget Cuts.
• Bloggers Are Being Threatened With Legislation For Jail Time To Silence Them.
• Conservative TV and Radio Are Being Threatened And Targeted By The Powers That Be.
• And The List Goes On… And On... And On

Everyone Needs To Wake Up, Pay Attention, Read... Even If You Are Not A Reader, Listen To A Spectrum and Variety of New Coverage, And Take Part In The Process.  We Need To Insist On The Transparency That We Were Promised During Obama's Campaign.

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Obama, with Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Rob Nabors, his deputy, unveiled nearly $17 billion in additional budget cuts for the coming fiscal year.

By JACKIE CALMES

Published: May 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday unveiled nearly $17 billion in additional budget cuts for the coming fiscal year to underscore what he called an “ongoing” effort to find savings at a time when the government’s costs for bailouts, health care and wars are mounting far faster.

“We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem,” said Mr. Obama, who was joined at the White House by Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Rob Nabors, his deputy. “We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation.”

The savings for the budget year starting Oct. 1 represent the sum of Mr. Obama’s promised “line by line” scrubbing of the federal budget, and the the proposed cuts amount to about 1.4 percent of the $1.2 trillion deficit that is projected for the fiscal year 2010.

Administration advisers called the cuts just a beginning, but some Republicans said they were less than impressed.

“While we appreciate the newfound attention to saving taxpayer dollars from this administration, we respectfully suggested that we should do far more," said RepresentativeJohn A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader.

The president’s 10-year budget outline, released in February, shows the deficit declining by his final year in office to $533 billion, mostly through assumptions about economic growth when the recession ends and which many economists consider somewhat optimistic.

The $17 billion would be saved by ending or reducing 121 federal programs.

Mr. Obama listed some of them: a long-range radio navigation system that costs $35 million but has been rendered obsolete by global positioning systems; a literacy program that spends half its financing on overhead, and will be absorbed by other Education Department efforts; and the position of education attaché to UNESCO, based in the United States Embassy in Paris.

“Participation in UNESCO is very important,” Mr. Obama said, “but we can save this money and still participate using e-mail, teleconferencing, and a small travel budget.”

The the 131-page budget document released Thursday showed spending in 2008 of $77,000 to rent living quarters for the attaché, and $21,000 for travel expenses, and the president noted that eliminating the position would save $632,000 a year.

An additional $142 million would be saved by ending a program to clean up abandoned mines. But eliminating the financing illustrates the difficulties the administration could face in Congress, where, as administration officials acknowledged, every program has its patrons. When Mr. Obama proposed cuts in the program as part of his budget outline, Western state lawmakers objected.

“None of this will be easy,” he said.

That is certainly true for about half of the savings that administration officials say will come from military programs. The savings proposals, outlined last month by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as part of a comprehensive reordering of military spending priorities, drew howls of protest from supporters in Congress and the arms industry.

Among Mr. Gates’s targets are missile defense programs, the Army’s costly Future Combat Systems, Navy shipbuilding, the advanced F-22 fighter jets and a state-of-the-art helicopter fleet for the president.

“This is a product of going through the budget line-by-line,” as Mr. Obama has promised since his presidential campaign, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said. “It’s a constant, cumulative effort on this front to find savings and find reductions.”

While the $17 billion in projected savings represents a small portion of the proposed budget, Mr. Obama insisted that “that’s a lot of money, even by Washington standards.” It was enough to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students, for larger Pell education grants, he said, “with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks.”

“For every dollar we seek to save there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent,” the president said. “That’s how unnecessary programs survive year after year. That’s how budgets swell.”

But, he added, “We cannot accept business as usual.”

Brian Knowlton contributed reporting

There are objections and criticisms coming from "both sides of the aisle" on the proposed 2010 budget cuts. The White House released details of President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2010 fiscal year today. For anyone who would like to read it, the whole deal is online here; Here’s the proposed budget for Health and Human Services.

The WSJ is reporting that the budget includes a $300 million funding boost for the FDA, (this is not a good thing) the largest in the agency’s history.

"Time to take the 'red pill' so you can see past the Matrix, America!!"

More Good Reasons To Eat Organic... Helps Weight Loss

The hormones in dairy, meat, and poultry raise estrogen levels, which can cause you to hold onto body fat. The pesticides on nonorganic fruits and veggies also inhibit hormonal activity in the body, leading to weight gain.

Another no-no: Anything that’s processed or packaged, since it’s often laden with preservatives and salt.

Eat as simply as possible—for example, have just a plain chicken breast sautéed in a little lemon juice to add some flavor.

If at all possible buy your produce at a local farmer's market or health food type of store... but even better, start your own garden!