Listed as a network partner of the nonprofit activist coalition State Voices, BNC is also funded by the Babcock Foundation, the Bydale Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, and the Triangle Community Foundation.
Welcome to Friends Of Liberty Archives We hope you enjoy our Posts
Obama's Ammo Grab
I am willing to give any Obama loving Liberal gun grabbing SOB my 5.56mm ammo one at a time, at 2,750 fps.
Come and get it!!!!!!!
THE TROJAN HORSE
The only way the AMERICAN Public would accept a “Dictator” would be
to disguise it….So If you are Part of the “New World Oder” team like let’s say George (I love Hitler)
group you were in SEARCH of a EMPTY SUIT PARROT for decades…..And then along
came a little Baby Bastard boy BARRY…..Born from a White Trash WHORE in some
village in HELL…Communist Grand Parents, Communist African Muslim who all hated
AMERICA…..
The SOROS GROUP knew via WHITE GUILT they had a GREAT Chance
of finely fulfilling DECADES of plans…So here we have a Minority, a Muslim, a
Communist and a 100% FRAUD…..Once they got him into office they knew they had
their boy & their plan WORKING….We have a Muslim raised, cocaine smoking ,
Communist, American Hating & heavily rumored AC/DC as POTUS…..Unimpeachable
because of his RACE….You also have a Soros Controlled New Your Media & Race
Baiters like Al Sharption & Jessie Jackson with their hand out & on
board with the plan…..
Barry has appointed himself as Queen Dictator, he does what
he wants because no one will stand up the Black Muslim…..He is bringing & legalizing
MILLIONS into this country…..He is bringing thousands of Syrian Muslims into
this COUNTRY…..And giving them the Privilege’s Citizens have worked a lifetime
for….Voting, right to work, welfare &
Healthcare…WHY????? To make sure the CHANGE to COMMUNISM is COMPLETED…….
Where else in the WORLD could this happen or take place? Would Russia, China, Korea, Iran, Mexico,
Europe Africa or Australia? Answer: Hell no ! So why here?….. Answer: Because
we are STUPID, BRAINWASHED & we bought the CON…..Barry has done what Hitler
& Stalin couldn’t ….Destroyed us FROM WITHIN …..Pathetic….This was a –UP from the beginning ….. THE TROJAN HORSE
We Are Ruled By Fifth Columnists And Useful Idiots
Obama Administration: Fifth columnists and useful idiots
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHDFebruary 25, 2015
Never in the course of American history has so much harm been done to so many by so few.
A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group such as a nation from within. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine, using sabotage, disinformation or espionage conducted to undermine a government or a country by agents or sympathizers, who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy.
A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe.
The term has been used in a similar sense as fellow travelers, communist sympathizers in Western countries, who blindly supported Lenin, Stalin and the totalitarian aims of the Soviet Union. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as standing for an altruistic socialist cause, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Communist Party of Soviet Union for subversive activities in their native Western countries.
Today, useful idiot or "Obama groupie" largely refers to naive, misinformed or willfully ignorant liberals, leftists or Islamist sympathizers dominating academia, the media and Hollywood.
Together with the assistance of fifth columnists, useful idiots and compliant Republicans, Barack Obama is succeeding to fundamentally transform the United States of America and reshape our position in the world.
Obama's fundamental transformation is simply a euphemism for the age-old revolutionary goal of undermining the existing order by fostering and exploiting uncertainty and instability.
The foreign policy of the Obama Administration has been one punctuated by the withdrawal of American leadership from the global stage ("leading from behind"); regime change in secular Egypt, Syria and Libya in favor of Islamic extremism; supporting Iran over Israel and passivity in the face of Russian and Chinese expansionism; all of which contributes to instability and the ultimate transformation of the existing world order at the expense of western democracy.
Obama's domestic agenda of economic and social instability has included the massive growth of government and national debt; policies that increase regulation and lessen personal liberty; greater racial and ethnic divisiveness; scorn for American values and traditions and an illegal immigration strategy meant to permanently change the demographics of the American population; all of which ostensibly calculated to produce a de facto oppressive one-party state.
It is not just Obama's leftist and Islamic personal history or that he surrounds himself with people of similar beliefs, but it has been his actions in office that lead many American to conclude that the Obama Administration, seemingly infiltrated by fifth columnists and buttressed by useful idiots, pursues policies that facilitate rather than oppose the aims of our enemies.
More shocking, however, is the extent by which members of Congress and the media have shielded Obama and his acolytes from any serious scrutiny, demanded any meaningful accountability or mounted any sustained opposition.
Those who raise legitimate questions or identify potential wrongdoing are presumed racist or mentally unbalanced misfits, in a situation where the truth is casually sacrificed by Democrats and Republicans alike in order to preserve a corrupt political status quo, as Obama drives the country off the cliff.
Similar to the Soviet Union or an Islamic state, the Obama Administration need not fear that any of its agencies will do anything about the lies or misconduct. Nor need it fear that there will be objections from the elected representatives of the people. Nor need it fear that the media will raise any but polite questions.
Not a day goes by when I don't shake my head in disbelief.
We are indeed transformed.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution ". He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.
A Discover The Networks Synopsis On The History Of ISIS
Below is another excellent compendium by David Horowitz. This one summarizes the evolution of ISIS. Many of us probably are aware of much of this, but we may find something new, especially regarding its origins.
Ben Carson charges Democrats with taking advantage of blacks :
Trying to keep them suppressed and cultivate their votes'
Dr. Ben Carson grabbed the Democratic Party's third rail with both hands Thursday morning, launching a political attack based on his complaint that liberals are 'making people dependent' in majority-black American inner-cities.
Race politics have been the near-exclusive domain of the Democrats since the civil-rights era of the 1960s, and Barack Obama's successful White House bid in 2008 solidified their position.
Der Fuhrer Orders Banks To Be Silent On His Targeting Of Gun Dealers, And Consumers
We are not losing our freedoms, we have lost them!
‘DO NOT DISCLOSE’: Obama Admin Tells Banks To Shut Up About Its Targeting of Consumers, Gun Dealers 01/28/2015
Obama View Of ‘True Islam’ Is Sheer Irrelevance
It Doesn’t Matter One Bit What Obama Thinks ‘True Islam’ Is
In Egypt, the president is Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a pious Muslim. Having grown up in the world's center of sharia scholarship and closely studied the subject, he has courageously proclaimed that Islam desperately needs a "religious revolution."
In the United States, the president is Barack Obama, a non-Muslim. His childhood experience of Islam, which ended when he was just ten, occurred in Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim country, but a non-Arabic one where the teaching and practice of Islam is very different from what it is in the Middle East.While Sisi sees a dangerous flaw in Islam, Obama believes America needs to be "fundamentally transformed" but Islam is fine as is. You see the problem, no?
The beginning of the end of Obamnesty!
judge's injunction 'says far more than it might seem'
.
Honorable Andrew Hanen ordered a halt to the Obama administration’s amnesty program for illegal aliens
American Family Association Identifies Over 200 Groups Hostile To Christianity
.jpg)
Christianity is a threat to the nefarious agenda of the totalitarian forces which are presently on an accelerated quest for world domination.
They seek to weaken the and dilute the faith by watering it down with the siren song of social justice and in many cases acceptance of Islam.
Christians must recognize this trap and remain true to the tenets of their faith.
The American Family Association has compiled an excellent interactive and explanatory map to show where known anti-Christian organizations exist.
Yes, Ted Cruz IS Eligible To Serve As President
Hat/Tip to Greg Conterio at Western Free Press
As 2016, and the end of the Obama era fades into the dustbin of history, along with all the other failed regimes of the world, we Americans look towards the peaceful transfer of power, and the next chapter in our nation’s story.
In doing so, we begin to evaluate those among us who may seek to hold the highest office in our land. There are many potential contenders out there, on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. We have of course Hillary on the Democratic side, along with Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo and even Michael Bloomberg.
Along Republican lines there are a lot of names that might throw their hat into the ring; Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney (despite his protestations to the contrary), Dr. Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Allen West and Ted Cruz.
Now among that list of folks, one name draws a specific argument – an argument that isn’t limited to one side of the aisle or the other. It is the possibility that Ted Cruz may not even be eligible to run. So in that vein, I’ve decided to reprint in its entirety, a piece that ran in the Western Free Press by Greg Conterio. In his piece he breaks down the subject of Ted Cruz’s eligibility, once and for all.
Yes, Ted Cruz IS eligible to serve as president
by Greg Conterio
As the American political right begins to set its sights on the 2016 presidential election, a bit of a kerfuffle has persisted over the eligibility of Ted Cruz, should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. Most confusing for some may be the persistent voices on the right who insist Cruz is ineligible. While I find it incredibly bizarre that people who are staunchly on the right would be spending so much energy trying to disqualify one of strongest, most conservative political leaders our side can field, I can assure you that however well-intentioned their views may be, they are mistaken in their understanding of Cruz’s eligibility.
Let us see if we can walk through this, one piece at a time.
First, let’s take a quick look at the law itself. The qualifications for serving as president are laid out in the Constitution, which among other things says:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”
So, natural born citizen—check. This is the part for which it is claimed Cruz doesn’t qualify, but what exactly is a “natural born citizen”? Despite the great amount of debate, there truly is one and only one legally controlling authority, and that is U.S. Code law and, of course, its interpretation.
This matter is, or ought to be, largely outside debate. The Constitution defined our government, and the boundaries and constraints under which it would operate. However, the Founders understood that a body of code law would have to be created within the Constitution’s framework, and they gave the power to create laws to Congress. The Constitution is a short, simple document, and rightly so. It is up to Congress to create laws that faithfully represent the intent of the Constitution.
In other words, the Framers didn’t spell out a definition for “natural born citizen” because it was deliberately left to Congress to determine. Indeed, a faithful interpretation of the Constitution—a document revered by us conservatives—must include recognition that this power was granted to Congress. The legal definition of a “natural born citizen,” a.k.a. a “citizen at birth,” can be found in section 1401, Subchapter III of the U.S. Code.
Now, let us look at how this applies to Ted Cruz, and see if we can’t put this question to bed.
Senator Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, which of course is in Canada. The senator’s father, Rafael Cruz, is from Cuba, and has quite an interesting story himself, but was not a citizen at the time of his son’s birth. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, however, was a citizen, having been born and raised in Delaware. Eleanor attended Rice university in Texas, where she also worked for Shell Oil Company as a programmer after graduating.
This brings us to subsection (d) of section 1401 of the previously mentioned U.S. Code, which in defining those who are legally citizens at birth, reads:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (emphasis mine)
This is the aspects of the U.S. code which pertains to Senator Cruz.
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States
His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware.
who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person
His mother was born, raised, and lived in the United States. She was thus “physically present in the United States” for far more that the required “continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person.”
and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States
His father was a U.S. national, but not a citizen. He was married to Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, a U.S. citizen, thus making him a national according to the law.
Ted Cruz fits all the requirements established in Section 1401, Subchapter III of U.S. Code for being a citizen.
There are a number of important things to understand here.
First, and most essential—the only controlling authority on this question is U.S. law. Skeptics have put forth the belief that 18th century common law or quotes from the Founders have authority over this question. They do not. While we revere both the wisdom of our predecessors (handed down through human institutions such as tradition and common law) and the brilliance and intent of our Founders, neither of these have any legal authority over the legal definition of “natural born citizen.” That authority is found in the law alone.
And indeed, it bears repeating—the Founders themselves vested the authority to create these laws, and to create legal definitions of terminology, with Congress. If we are to respect the Framers of the Constitution, that is part of what we must respect. If we disagree with the current legal definition of the term, the solution is not to pretend that a different controlling authority exists, the solution is to challenge the law in court or to petition our elected representatives to change the law.
Second, there is no distinction between the terms “natural born citizen” and“citizen at birth.” Legally speaking, both terms mean exactly the same thing. In fact, in the United States, there are only two legally recognized classifications of citizen: Citizen at Birth and Naturalized Citizen. This actually gives us a very easy way to gauge if someone is qualified to serve as President: If they went through a naturalization ceremony to obtain citizenship, they are not so qualified. If, on the other hand, they are a citizen, and never had to be naturalized, as is the case with Senator Cruz, they are eligible. From a legal perspective, it really is that simple.
It can be fascinating looking into the etymology of the phrase natural born citizen, but the historical meanings of a particular phrase are not necessarily the same as, and should not be confused with, its legally defined meaning. The only meaning that carries any legal weight is the one defined in the U.S. Code.
I recognize and respect that passions run high on this subject. But I assure you, you can take this analysis to the bank. And if you are a Ted Cruz fan, then take heart—he really is eligible to run for, and serve as, president!
Update:
Any time I write an article involving presidential eligibility and the Natural Born clause of Article II, a number of standard objections seem to pop up. The claims take a variety of forms, but they usually involve the assertion that when it comes to interpreting and clarifying this particular clause in the Constitution, some other source of authority has primacy over the U.S. Code. There there tends to be a recurring set of objections. I will try to deal with the most common of them here.
1. The Founders said Natural Born Citizen, and the U.S. Code says Citizen at Birth, which mean two completely different things. Therefore the U.S. Code is trumped by the Constitution
Based on United States’ law, the terms Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at Birth are synonymous with each other. Those who claim otherwise need to come up with some authoritative case law clearly distinguishing between the two terms. (Note: The assertion that this is done in Supreme Court cases is dealt with below.) The idea that NBC and CaB are materially different from each other is similar to claiming the words “dog” and “domestic canine” mean different things. They both refer to the same thing: citizenship other than that which comes from naturalization.
In a paper written by the Congressional Research Service, the two terms are explained as well as I have ever seen:
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.”
Think of it this way: Both terms are meant to distinguish a citizen born subject to the laws, privileges, and responsibilities of a particular state or government from a person who must acquire citizenship through an affirmative act of his own. While there are no writings by the Founders providing a single legal definition of natural born citizen, there are several making clear their intent was to ensure against some individual with loyalties to another king or country from scheming or buying his way into the presidency. Even if someone manages to present evidence of some minutiae distinguishing the separate meanings of NBC and CaB, I have yet to hear anyone explain how it that makes a critical difference in this clearly expressed intent. Which brings us to . . .
2. Title 8 of the U.S. Code carries no weight—the only thing that is important is the intent of the founders, and what they thought “Natural Born Citizen” means.
This is what I refer to as the “Common Law” argument; essentially, it says that the common-law meaning of the term natural born citizen is the only thing that really matters. After all, it is well established that much of the Constitution was undergirded by the Founders’ understanding of English Common law. Unfortunately, the term Natural Born Citizen does not have a fixed, singular meaning, even in the context of common law, but fortunately we do have William Blackstone, who is accepted as a principle authority on the topic.
Blackstone dealt with subjects rather than citizens, as Americans began calling themselves after gaining independence, and Blackstone defined Natural-born Subjects as those “born within the dominions of the crown of England.” Blackstone further held that children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad are always held to be natural subjects. In other words, though such children were born outside English soil, they still retained all the status attached to any other child born within England. Finally, Blackstone also notes that “..more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes.” If this sounds familiar, that is because the verbiage of sub-section (d) of section 1401 cited above is based on this same, common-law principle.
Some assert that because this common law principle, as stated by Blackstone and some of the Founders, refers to “fathers,” that Ted Cruz cannot be considered a citizen because it was his mother, not his father, who was the U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. But that is where the U.S. code law enters in. Our laws are informed by common law, but they go on to clarify it for purposes of more precise adjudication of the law. That is why sub-section (d) of section 1401 clarifies the common law version that refers to fathers with a legal version that refers to parents.
3. Case law – I have seen a number of court cases raised as examples which somehow prove some distinct meaning for natural born citizen. Unfortunately, I fear that many (if not most) of the people who cite these cases have not taken the time to actually read them. Here are a few I often see cited, along with a short synopsis of what they really are about:
Minor v. Happersett – This was a suffrage era case that dealt with Missouri’s state law prohibiting women’s voting rights. It obliquely references the 14th Amendment, but says absolutely nothing that could be even remotely construed as a “definition” of “natural born citizen” or how it might be distinct from “citizen at birth.” The principle finding in this case is that citizenship does not confer a right to vote.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark – This case affirms the principle of Jus Soli, or citizenship at birth, established in the 14thAmendment. Most importantly, it established the interpretation of the phrase “..subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in that amendment, which principle has remained unchallenged since. The case does not however address or deal with the meaning or definition of natural born citizen beyond this narrow focus, nor does it distinguish that term from citizen at birth.
The Venus – This oddly-named case (Venus was the name of a merchant ship seized by a Privateer, on behalf of the U.S. Government during the War of 1812) from 1814 is actually a property dispute dealing with the disposition of war prizes seized by the United States. The subject of citizenship is tangential at best, and has to do with the government’s arguments over disposition of the property claimed by the plaintiffs. The case does not address citizenship, either natural-born or naturalized, in any way useful to the debate over the meaning of natural born citizen, or any distinction between that and citizen at birth. Its principle significance was in refining the laws of property seizure during war.
Shanks v. DuPont – This case is actually yet another property dispute, and does not deal in any material way with questions about natural born citizenship. In a nutshell, two sisters inherited property in South Carolina upon the death of their father. Both daughters were legally considered citizens by birth, but one married a British officer during the War for Independence and left with him to live out the remainder of her life in England. The dispute was between the children of these two sisters, and was based on the claim that since the British had invaded and occupied parts of South Carolina for a time, including the property in question, this somehow caused the sister who left for England to forfeit her citizenship. The court disagreed.
Perkins v. Elg – This case involved a young girl, born on U.S. soil to Swedish parents (father was naturalized) who returned with her to Sweden a short time after her birth, where they reclaimed their citizenship of that country. The girl returned to the U.S. after her 21st birthday, and her citizenship claim was upheld by the SCOTUS. This case again deals with the principle of Jus Soli, and once again does not address any distinction between natural born citizen and citizen at birth, nor does address any of the claims or controversies about presidential qualifications.
You are certainly welcome to read them for yourselves, but in fact none of these commonly cited cases has any bearing, or even says anything relevant about Article II of the Constitution, nor do they contradict Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code.
4. but according to Section 1401, Cruz’s mother had to be a government official, or a member of the armed forces in order for him to be a citizen.
This objection is based on subsection (g) of the referenced code, and is based on a misreading of that subsection. What the code is actually saying is, for children born outside the U.S. and its territories, where one parent is a citizen and the other is an alien, (as opposed to a U.S. National, as stated in subsection (d) of the same code) the citizen parent must have been present in the U.S. (or it’s territories) for no less than five years, and any military service or time spent overseas as an employee of the U.S. counts toward that five year requirement. This subsection does not affect Senator Cruz, because his father was still a U.S. National, even though he was not a citizen. And even if it did apply, since his mother had already spent her whole life living within the United States before moving to Calgary, she more than met the requirement, even without having to get credit for time in U.S. service.
Quite often, objections I encounter are based on a misreading of legal language. In other words, the objector is citing code or case law, but (s)he is misinterpreting the meaning of the words. I compliment anyone who is attempting to read the law itself, as the law is the authoritative source for these matters. However, I would ask most earnestly—read it slowly and carefully. Legal language often involves long sentences with multiple clauses. It helps to try to look for the primary subject of each sentence, and the main verb, to get the meaning. Often, it helps to temporarily ignore all the non-restrictive clauses in between.
I’m not a lawyer, and you don’t need to be one in order to understand legal language (though it probably helps). We, the People, can do this. But we have to look to the law as the authoritative source. I guarantee that if this is ever adjudicated in Congress or the courts, that is what they will do.
Attorney General Eric Holder is Accuses of "Wrecking" the First Amendment
'The Greatest Enemy of Press Freedom in a Generation'
A New York Times reporter's accusation that the Obama administration engages in censorship raises questions about when journalism slides into advocacy.
Media Accepting Obama’s Spin on the Economy
.jpg)
Another excellent article from Trevor Loudon's Blog, New Zeal
Media Accepting Obama’s Spin on the Economy
Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on February 24, 2015
By: Roger Aronoff
With as many lies and distortions that proceed from this scandal-plagued administration, one might think that mainstream reporters would turn a skeptical eye toward another one of President Obama’s carefully crafted narratives. Each narrative is designed to push “progressive” policies or to cover up administration mismanagement. But our corrupt media reflexively cheer whenever the leftist agendas for amnesty, Obamacare, climate change, and economic regulation are mentioned. Add to the list of official narratives the hyped state of the economy, the successes of which cannot fail to be championed because they reflect on the viability of the current President’s policies.
WE ARE BEING RULED BY BOTTOM FEEDERS
n Light of what a,"PURE UNMITIGATED DISASTER" The Pathetic Urchin BARRY SORENTO is, how is it that this CREATURE from HELL is still SUCKING AIR....We are ONE STEP away from being One Giant PRISON CAMP & all the Sheep, Monkeys & Zombies can do is go, ho hum it's just the way it is, stick one finger up the arise & rotate every other hour....and do NOT ONE DAMN THING.....
The Nexus Between Islamists and Leftists Comes To Light In Countering Violent Extremism Summit
The following article details what most of us already know, there is an unholy alliance between the Islamists and Leftists. Both totalitarian ideologies merge beautifully.
For their part, Islamists share the Left’s affinity for muscular government that suffocates individual liberty.
Of course, a few minor details like gay tolerance and equality of women may need to be ironed out. Nevertheless, this tyrannical train is racing down the track toward the Gates Of Hell, and we are the passengers.
Obama Trying To Kill The Beef Industry Under The Guise Of Health And Sustainability?
 |
| Will Beef Soon Be Extinct? |
All individuals should have a free choice as to what foods they choose to put into their bodies for their own nourishment. Just as one size fits all for health care does not work, neither will one diet for all.
Controlling the food supply is akin to controlling the financial system, and leads to outright oppression. Unless we become aware of the fact that we are losing our freedoms by a thousand small cuts over time, we will awaken one day with the jackboot of the governing authorities firmly on our necks.
Read the post below and be afraid, be very afraid. It may or may not come in our lifetimes, but rest assured that should we remain on the path we are now traveling, every aspect of our lives will be under state control.
********************************************
Beef producers say Obama is trying to kill their industry
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers from cattle producing states are seeing red following a 571-page federal report that that encourages Americans to go green.
A panel of nutrition experts recruited by the Obama administration to craft the newest dietary guidelines suggested last week that the government should consider the environment when deciding what people should eat.
The report, which was presented to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, bills itself as a way to “transform the food system” and that’s got a lot of people in the heartland and those elected to represent them in Washington fuming.
“Generations of cattle farmers and ranchers have been and continue to be conscientious about conserving limited natural resources,” Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa, told FoxNews.com. “They rely on the land and the environment for their livelihood. Those facts get lost in Washington and in arguments that eating red meat hurts the environment.”
The report, which is open for public comment for 45 days, will be used by the government not only to mold dietary guidelines but also used as the basis for government food assistance programs as well as school lunch programs, worth an estimated $16 billion annually.
The North American Meat Institute slammed the report, calling it “flawed” and “nonsensical.” Members of the meat industry as well as those from soda makers, say the panel has gone “beyond its scope.”
Dr. Richard Thorpe, a Texas physician and rancher, told FoxNews.com that he is disappointed in the panel’s recommendations and said “it’s absurd the committee would suggest the reduction of meat, or red meat, in the American diet.”
Thorpe says nutritional science is “constantly evolving” and that reports like the one released last week “can absolutely kill an industry” and called the report an “insult.”
The federal guidelines, which are updated every five years, have advised Americans about healthy eating choices. But critics say the newest report oversteps its boundaries and caters to a campaign aimed at driving out red meat producers.
Part of the problem, Thorpe says, is that the government is telling Americans they should also consider the sustainability of their food. That translates to eating less meat and loading up on vegetables and plants.
“Legumes should be a mainstay of an American diet?” Thorpe said, adding that it would take a wheelbarrow full of spinach to meet the same amount of iron in a serving of beef. He added that iron found in beef is not equal to iron in spinach, and that beef’s iron is more absorbable.
According to a June 2014 study in the journal Climatic Change, the average meat-eater in the United States is responsible for almost twice as much global warming as the average vegetarian and almost tripled that of the average vegan.
The Oxford University study dissected the diets of 60,000 individuals – 2,000 vegans, 15,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish-eaters and close to 30,000 meat-eaters – and found the difference in diet-driven carbon footprints was significant. The Oxford study found that cutting a person’s meat intake could cut a person’s carbon footprint by 35 percent. Go vegan and slash your carbon footprint by 60 percent.
But to Thorpe, that shouldn’t matter. He adds that medically there are big benefits to eating beef.
“We feel the beef industry owns protein,” he said, adding that the Obama administration is promoting a type of diet that could be harmful to some people. Thorpe says over the past three decades, the industry has “done nothing but reduce the amount of fat in our animals.”
Still, the science of consumption seems conflicted.
Tufts University professor Miriam Nelson says the panel isn’t telling all Americans to become vegan but adds, “We are saying that people need to eat less meat. We need to start thinking about what’s sustainable. …Other countries have started doing this – including sustainability in their recommendations. We should be doing it, too.”
WHO DO YOU WANT TO SEE AS THE GOP'S 2016 Presidential Candidate ?
The Presidential Horse-races For 2016
OUR POLL GO VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT !
What Are The GOP’S Options In The 2016 Presidential Campaign Now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)