RE: where do they stand?

[Guest guest]

Sorry, that was meant to be private, otherwise I would've given it the

politics tag.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> I realize that this group officially endorses Ron , but shouldn¹t this

> post have a ŒPOLITICS¹ tag?

>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Time is of the essence. I've been trying to figure out how I can get the

>> > message out to my chapter - some 80 folks - about Ron without going

>> > against WAPF's policy of not endorsing a particular candidate. You had sent

>> > me info showing that Jan 18 is the deadline in Maine for switching parties

>> > to caucus. In any event, I think a chart or article comparing RP's position

>> > on WAPF-related issues, such as the one's below in your excellent response

>> > to , to the other major candidates' positions on the same subjects

>> > would be a way to do this. I was wondering if you have the time and/or

>> > inclination to come up with such a chart and post it to your website? It

>> > needent punch out RP in any way, it could just be a chart showing each

>> > candidates position on raw milk, NAIS, etc. It may turn out that another

>> > candidate here or there might support one WAPF issue but when the chart is

>> > viewed in its entirety, RP would be the clear winner. You could post a link

>> > to it to the CL list and NN list and then other chapter leaders could send

>> > the link to their groups. This is not explicity telling anyone whom to vote

>> > for or whose campaign to donate to. I think it would be an effective way to

>> > get the word out about RP without crossing the line and risking WAPF's tax

>> > exempt status.

>> >

>> > And with Super Tuesday fast approaching, we need to get the word out fast

>> so

>> > people have time to learn more about RP and have time to switch party

>> > affiliations.

>> >

>> > What do you think?

>> >

>> > And of course this is just me as your friend and not as a representative of

>> > the WAPF suggesting this. I've not signed any cotract with the WAPF at this

>> > point and do not represent them. But might be good to delete this email

>> > anyway after you read it :-)

>> >

>> > Suze

>> >

>>> >> Re: Re: POLITICS - Who you should vote for

>>> >>

>>> >> ,

>>> >>

>>>> >>> It's a real shame that issues like sustainability, food quality, GMO,

>>>> >>> NAIS, vaccines, and supplement regulation aren't higher on the

>>>> >>> mainstream priority list. I'd rate them as " key " issues.

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron at Farm Food Voices:

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron on raw milk:

>>> >>

>>> >> ==========

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul422.html

>>> >>

>>> >> My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase

>>> >> unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research

>>> >> and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than

>>> >> pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these

>>> >> products without having the federal government second-guess their

>>> >> judgment about what products best promote health.

>>> >> ==========

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron on NAIS:

>>> >>

>>> >> ===========

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul326.html

>>> >>

>>> >> The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal

>>> >> mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers

>>> >> out of business. ... NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other

>>> >> diseases. .... More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and

>>> >> ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas

>>> >> competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob stated, NAIS is

>>> >> " too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers

>>> >> and ranchers. "

>>> >> ============

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron on vaccines:

>>> >>

>>> >> ===========

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html

>>> >>

>>> >> As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad

>>> >> policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad

>>> >> idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not

>>> >> be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No

>>> >> single person, including the President of the United States, should

>>> >> ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially

>>> >> millions of Americans. Freedom over one's physical person is the most

>>> >> basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign

>>> >> over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make

>>> >> medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our

>>> >> bodies.

>>> >>

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul203.html

>>> >>

>>> >> One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical

>>> >> industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that

>>> >> undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren

>>> >> under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children

>>> >> suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of

>>> >> Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical

>>> >> rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of

>>> >> criminal. ...

>>> >>

>>> >> Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and

>>> >> control over their children's well-being. There is no end to the

>>> >> bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how

>>> >> we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the

>>> >> latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory

>>> >> education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory

>>> >> vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony " social

>>> >> services " agencies all represent assaults on families. The political

>>> >> right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto

>>> >> nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents

>>> >> can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying

>>> >> real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.

>>> >>

>>> >> =================

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron on supplement regulations:

>>> >>

>>> >> ===========

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul261.html

>>> >>

>>> >> Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate

>>> >> dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part

>>> >> of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will

>>> >> be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international

>>> >> trade body will have a say over whether American supplement

>>> >> regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about

>>> >> it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex

>>> >> regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the

>>> >> question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more

>>> >> likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor's

>>> >> prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer

>>> >> is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for

>>> >> bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.

>>> >>

>>> >> Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get

>>> >> Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European

>>> >> governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part

>>> >> because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and

>>> >> Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act,

>>> >> because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the

>>> >> supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however -

>>> >> especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.

>>> >>

>>> >> This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see

>>> >> international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around

>>> >> American law and restrict supplements through international

>>> >> regulations.

>>> >>

>>> >> ============

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>>> >>> It's also ironic that if people recognized that the key to good health

>>>> >>> is diet and not drugs, vaccines, and surgery, " health care " might not

>>>> >>> be much of an issue and billions of dollars could be saved to pay for

>>>> >>> better quality sustainable food. I'm afraid most people are severely

>>>> >>> brainwashed in this regard.

>>> >>

>>> >> Ron on access to this information:

>>> >>

>>> >> =============

>>> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

>>> >> Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of

>>> >> Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they

>>> >> may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA

>>> >> prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of

>>> >> neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease

>>> >> Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age

>>> >> take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA

>>> >> action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural

>>> >> tube defects!

>>> >>

>>> >> The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the

>>> >> scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are

>>> >> effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids

>>> >> may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may

>>> >> reduce the risk of bone fractures.

>>> >>

>>> >> The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply

>>> >> with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American

>>> >> people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the

>>> >> federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops

>>> >> the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative,

>>> >> or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal

>>> >> court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship.

>>> >> The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting

>>> >> the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the

>>> >> role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

>>> >>

>>> >> =======

>>> >>

>>> >> Chris

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

[Guest guest]

" Suze Fisher " suzefisher@... wrote:

> I've been trying to figure out how I can get

the

>message out to my chapter - some 80 folks - about Ron without

going

>against WAPF's policy of not endorsing a particular candidate.

If WAPF is a 501C3 you've got a slippery slope. Iirc, you can endorse issues in

your statement of purpose or bylaws but you cannot back people running for

political office for your issues. That's the Federal law.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ