BASIC LIST / SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR LONG TERM SURVIVAL

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-20-2011, 04:09 AM

Thousands Taking Statins Needlessly
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/87101 ... essly.html

Resveratrol Based Drugs Next Big Wave
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ancer.html

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-21-2011, 12:14 AM

Video: Militarys Robotic Pack Mule Battles the Mud http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=O1Enc3auSS

Army Terminators Walk Like Men http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05 ... ike-a-man/

Darpas Cheetah-Bot Designed to Chase Human Prey http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=NZtcrdXSzQ

Darpa: Fuse Nerves With Robot Limbs, Make Prosthetics Feel Real http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=16Mv6nou6B

Pentagon: Give our Robot Spy Birds Life-Like Legs http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=D6bhlpcH

Running Robot Breaks Speed Records (Now All It Needs Is a Head)
Video: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/running-robot/

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-21-2011, 12:22 AM

Snake-Bot Evolves into Shorter, Smarter Worm-Bot

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... JnQL7mjspg

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11 ... -worm-bot/

Video: Bio-Bots Slither, Creep, and Waddle Ahead http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/video-bio-bots/

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-21-2011, 12:37 AM

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-21-2011, 12:42 AM

DARPA

http://www.darpa.mil/

DARPA HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ADVANCES TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE

August 11, 2011

HTV-2 collects unique data during several phases of second flight

Today, DARPA attempted to fly the fastest aircraft ever built. The Agency’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) is designed to fly anywhere in the world in less than 60 minutes. This capability requires an aircraft that can fly at 13,000 mph, while experiencing temperatures in excess of 3500F. The second test flight began with launch at 0745 Pacific Time. The Minotaur IV vehicle successfully inserted the aircraft into the desired trajectory. Separation of the vehicle was confirmed by rocket cam and the aircraft transitioned to Mach 20 aerodynamic flight. This transition represents a critical knowledge and control point in maneuvering atmospheric hypersonic flight. More than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal. Initial indications are that the aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path.

“Here’s what we know,” said Air Force Maj Chris Schulz, USAF, Ph.D., DARPA HTV-2 program manager and PhD in aerospace engineering. “We know how to boost the aircraft to near space. We know how to insert the aircraft into atmospheric hypersonic flight. We do not yet know how to achieve the desired control during the aerodynamic phase of flight. It’s vexing; I’m confident there is a solution. We have to find it.”

“Prior to flight, the technical team completed the most sophisticated simulations and extensive wind tunnel tests possible. But these ground tests have not yielded the necessary knowledge. Filling the gaps in our understanding of hypersonic flight in this demanding regime requires that we be willing to fly,” said DARPA Director Regina Dugan. “In the April 2010 test, we obtained four times the amount of data previously available at these speeds. Today more than 20 air, land, sea and space data collection systems were operational. We’ll learn. We’ll try again. That’s what it takes.”

According to Schulz, three technical challenges exist within this HTV-2 flight regime. They are categorized as aerodynamic; aerothermal; and guidance, navigation and control. And each phase of flight introduces unique obstacles within these areas.

“To address these obstacles, DARPA has assembled a team of experts that will analyze the flight data collected during today’s test flight, expanding our technical understanding of this incredibly harsh flight regime,” explained Schulz. “As today’s flight indicates, high-Mach flight in the atmosphere is virtually uncharted territory. ”

In the coming weeks, the assembled independent Engineering Review Board will review and analyze the data collected. This data will inform policy, acquisition and operational decisions for future Conventional Prompt Global Strike programs—the goal of which, ultimately, is to have the capability to reach anywhere in the world in less than one hour.

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Rele...KNOWLEDGE.aspx

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-21-2011, 12:50 AM

Are the raw milk raids to distract from something far more deadly to farming?

Posted on August 17, 2011
17 Comments
By William Davis

People have been saying that the FDA goofed because their attacks on Rawesome and California’s cease and desist orders for goat herders have galvanized public attention to the issue of raw milk and safe food. But when corporate media gives time to grass roots anti-corporate issues, there is usually a purpose.

Just as the New York Times and other corporate outlets appeared to be muck raking about industrial agriculture with all their stories on the terrible, contaminated conditions there as the food safety bills were on the table in Congress, it was not to ensure the small farmers became a greater source of food but to create sense of public outrage in order to push through a devastating corporate bill.

Not once did the NY Times publish articles on how the bills threatened farmers, though it was blatant that they did, or on how corrupt the FDA was, or about the fact that a Monsanto lawyer and VP was put in charge of all food and farms. And now that the Food Safety Modernization Act has passed and that same Monsanto person is ordering raids against safe food across the country, the NY Times is also silent.

So, if there is big media attention on FDA raids now, one is compelled to wonder what are they pulling farming, food and health advocates’ attention from?

A good guess is the gargantuan thing the USDA is doing to farmers and ranchers and anyone with so much as a chicken. Jim Hightower, former agricultural commissioner in Texas back when such people actually cared about farmers, has called the USDA plan “lunatic.”

The USDA program was once called NAIS (the National Animal Identification System) but was so detested by farmers and ranchers that the government had to back off. They did, momentarily, since 90% of the farmers at Vilsack’s listening sessions were vehemently opposed. The USDA promised to take that into consideration.

They did. They changed the name to “traceability,” hoping to slip it through now, hoping farmers are worn out from the last go-round, hoping the public won’t notice, and perhaps hoping the raw milk raids will keep farmers, and the public who strongly supports them, occupied.

NAIS, or traceability, had been promised as voluntary but the USDA is bringing it back as mandatory. It had been promised to ranchers that their brands would serve as identification but the USDA flat out lied about that.

“USDA did not have to attack our industry’s hot-iron brand or add younger cattle to the proposed rule in order to improve animal disease traceability in the United States, but we believe it has chosen to do so to appease the World Trade Organization and other international tribunals,” said R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard recently.

Hightower’s article makes clear that this animal ID plan to track down deadly animal diseases is not about diseases at all. Neither is the USDA’s decision to locate a germ lab in Tornado Alley over the objections of ranchers and scientists who say it can cause a leak and set off diseases, or in trying to bring in cattle from Brazil where a disease is active now, once again over the objections of ranchers working to keep their animals healthy.

So what is this USDA program that is rousing all this resistance and all this lying on the USDA’s part? Hightower says it is a system that “would compel all owners of [farm] animals to register their premises and personal information in a federal database, to buy microchip devices and attach them to every single one of their animals (each of which gets its very own 15-digit federal ID number), to log and report each and every ‘event’ in the life of each animal, to pay fees for the privilege of having their location and animals registered, and to sit still for fines of up to $1,000 a day for any noncompliance.”

Whoa. It does so many, many objectionable things, one almost naturally skips right over the far and away most poisonous part. Putting aside the onerousness and impossibility of logging and reporting all events and movement of animals and the huge fines, the real kicker is this: it would “compel all owners of [farm] animals register their premises….”

Mr. Hightower is mistaken, however, that the information would be put “in a federal database.” It would be into a privately-owned corporate database, out of reach of a public records request. Farmers raise this central question in a highly informative article called The Amish and the bailout?

A few urban folk may still picture farmers as hay-chewing rednecks, but clearly they were thinking hard as they chewed because they appear to have been sharp as pitchforks at sniffing out what may be the largest government trickery in US history.

What, farmers ask, are “premises?” It is not an international term? And with premises, is a person merely a stakeholder in land, not an owner? Is this, farmers inquired of the USDA, different from “property” which is a constitutional term in which one owns one’s land? And in signing onto premises, wouldn’t farmers be signing their land onto an international contract and in the process be losing their property rights as landowners but become mere stake holders?

And for whom would they be holding the stake?

Some think a good guess might be the IMF, the Fed, the World Bank, or even the Chinese. George Soros has been buying up farmland across the midwest at low prices after the floods. He is also selling gold and buying farmland. Land is where it’s at.

Do the bankers who took our homes, our jobs, our manufacturing, our economy, now want the land itself?

Sometime back, a man named Wayne Hage suggested that our land is collateral on the national debt.
Is that correct? Does President Obama’s Executive Order 13575 further these aims?

Is the USDA forcing our farmers and ranchers (and any of us with a chicken) into international contracts in readiness for a government default? Funny how that sounds remarkably like the Rockefellers’ (bankers) UN Agenda 21. No property rights and no people on the land at all. Have the bankers and corporations created the debt which pushed us into debt in the first place, set the country up for a default in order to take over our land?

The right to choose our food is a fundamental human right and people are now realizing it’s at risk, but there can be no food and thus no rights at all, without the land.

Stopping premises ID comes first. It’s everything.

Ignore the occasional misplaced concern about pesticides and golf courses, and remember that these conservatives saw the fundamental threat of UN Agenda 21 long ago, so even if they drop the dart a few times, they get the bulls-eye when they throw. This video on UN Agenda 21 shows what is planned with land and property rights for everyone.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/201...ly-to-farming/

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-22-2011, 06:06 AM

FDA TO SUPPLEMENTS: DROP DEAD

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and "Global Censorship of Health Information"
August 22, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The FDA is aggressively reducing the size and scope of the dietary supplement industry, culling from its ranks many small, innovative producers to pave the way for an ultimate assumption of market control over basic vitamins and minerals by pharmaceutical companies. For decades the FDA employed direct, blunt tactics to force supplements off the market or make them available only by prescription, ranging from efforts to declare nutrients above certain dose levels unlawful to sell except as drugs to efforts to define dietary supplements as unapproved food additives (on the ridiculous theory that a gel cap is a food and the nutrients within in it are food additives). Those efforts failed miserably because they appeared to the public transparent attempts to take their supplements away. The current FDA approach to remove supplements from the market does not offend public sentiment because it proceeds under the guise of safety without ever having to prove a product actually unsafe. That approach is causing the supplement company carcasses to form heaps along the regulatory road.

Unwisely, major dietary supplement companies, through their trade association the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) (since renamed Natural Products Association (NPA)), drafted a lengthy document calling for FDA to adopt rules mandating process controls over every aspect of dietary supplement manufacture, holding, and distribution, the so-called current Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines. Misunderstanding the relative strength of the dietary supplement lobby at the FDA and the amount of power conveyed to FDA through the proposal, many leading supplement makers thought the new regulations would force small firms out of the market, achieving an anti-competitive goal. They failed to appreciate that the primary regulate at the FDA, and the one that has the agency as its captive, is the drug industry. Consequently, FDA with pleasure adopted the cGMPs but proceeded to enforce them in ways that are enormously costly, adversely affecting all companies, big and small, in the industry, to the great benefit of those, like the pharmaceutical companies, that rely on economies of scope and scale in standardized mass manufacture of drug and supplement products that already satisfy these same kinds of regulations. When fully implemented, the GMPs are estimated by the FDA itself to result in a reduction of some 25% of the companies in the dietary supplement industry. An economic assessment my firm had commissioned of the impact yielded a higher estimate, some 30% of supplement companies.

In addition, under Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA has selectively changed its enforcement priorities and policies to be far more aggressive, protecting the agency’s favored regulatee, the drug industry, from all but nominal actions while slamming supplement companies even for minor infractions of the rules. During the Bush Administration, the FDA required its district offices to obtain approval from the FDA Chief Counsel’s office before initiating an enforcement action against a company. Commissioner Hamburg eliminated that requirement, enabling district offices to proceed as desired against supplement companies. Indeed, she stepped up enforcement, investigating far more companies and issuing far more warning letters than her predecessors. She also approved agency reliance on draconian consent decrees (forcing those accused of wrong-doing to face criminal charges or agree to a multi-year system of FDA oversight that forces the accused to hire outside counsel beholden to the FDA to review all company labels and labeling and report to the FDA and permits random agency inspections at the company’s expense, among other costly strictures).

Adding to those changes, the Food Safety Modernization Act invites FDA to hire some 30,000 new investigators, forces all food companies to register with the FDA for the first time in American history, and compels companies to pay the cost of all reinspections of food facilities with the proceeds going to pay for additional inspections.

While all of those measures would appear enough to force out of existence a significant number of supplement companies, FDA just recently added yet another weapon to its arsenal against supplements: the New Dietary Ingredient guidance. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, a New Dietary Ingredient is presumed adulterated and unlawful to sell unless (1) it is a dietary ingredient in food that has not been chemically altered or (2) it has been the subject of a petition to FDA and the agency registers no objection to its entry into the market. In its guidance, FDA has vastly expanded the definition of chemical alteration, so that far more ingredients must be the subject of advance FDA approval to be lawful to market.

As counsel to the Alliance for Natural Health—USA, my firm commissioned Dr. Joanna Shepherd Bailey, professor of law and economics at Emory University, an expert in assessing the impact of regulation, to determine the impact of the FDA’s New Dietary Ingredient guidance. She determined that if fully implemented by supplement companies, the guidance would cause approximately 50% of dietary supplements currently on the market to be unlawful to sell. The guidance would cause over 100,000 people in the industry to lose their jobs. Revenue losses would be in the billions.

When we examine the history of law, policy, and enforcement under President Obama’s FDA, we see aggressive regulatory enforcement that is having the effect of destroying businesses, sacrificing jobs, and denying consumers access to health enhancing nutrients. The beneficiaries of the FDA’s supplement wrecking ball are the large pharmaceutical companies who, like Cheshire cats, sit on the fence, eyeing the developments with smiles, waiting to pounce and fill the void once the supplement companies have been sufficiently culled by big pharma’s help mate.

© 2011 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, six on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, and Global Censorship of Health Information. He is also the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine. For more info visit Emord.com.

Website: Emord.com

E-Mail: jwemord@gmail.com

http://newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan206.htm

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-22-2011, 08:29 AM

Convince Reluctant Loved Ones To Prepare

August 22, 2011 by David Morris

Encourage your loved one to purchase nonperishable food items to save for a rainy day.

Once you realize how important and urgent it is to prepare your family for disasters, getting loved ones on board can be one of the most frustrating and heartrending parts of the process. Whether it is getting someone in your own house to “see the light” or getting a friend or loved one to take threats seriously, this can cause almost as much stress as the disasters you’re trying to prepare for.

I’ve got a couple of approaches that I want to share with you today that will help you with people who have investments or see the wisdom in saving.

I was listening to Dave Ramsey’s financial radio show on the way home earlier this week, as I often do. He was suggesting, as usual, that someone needed to follow his steps to financial peace.

The first step that he suggests is to get a $1,000 emergency fund. Interestingly enough, the reason for doing this is “for those unexpected events in life that you can’t plan for… It’s not a matter of if these events will happen; it’s simply a matter of when they will happen.”

The second step is to pay off all debts except the house.

And the third step is to build up three to six months of savings to serve as an emergency fund.

I can’t remember ever talking to anyone who thought that having an emergency fund was a bad idea. Even people who are dead set against preparedness or even simple food storage will agree that having a rainy day fund is a smart idea.

I’d venture to say that every adult has either benefited from having an emergency fund or wished that they had one at some point in his life. I’ve experienced both of those situations, and I can tell you that when you find yourself in “emergency” mode, you will always wish you had more in your emergency fund than you do.

Most people stop with the thought that an emergency fund is a good thing. But if you peel this onion back a little bit, it opens up a whole new way of looking at emergency funds/rainy day funds and preparedness and will give you a solid foundation for talking about preparedness with someone who believes in having an emergency fund.

Let’s start by looking at the kinds of expenses that people think they’ll use their emergency funds for. In many cases, it’s for a car repair or medical expenses. But in today’s environment of high unemployment, people generally accept the fact that they might be using their emergency fund to pay for basic necessities like food, shelter, fire, water and possibly fuel for transportation after losing their job(s).

Forget about the fact that there may be a regional disaster; people lose jobs every day and experience their own personal emergencies. Unemployment rates are on the news almost every day. And if you know more than 10 people, chances are very high that you know someone who’s lost his job in the past year or two. The loss of a job is much more realistic and easier for the general public to accept than the possibility of a failure of the electrical grid, rioting, fuel or food shortages, or any other major disaster that could cause a breakdown in civil order.

So, if you’re talking with someone who has an emergency fund set aside for a rainy day, ask him if he found himself in a situation in which he needed to use it, if some of that money would go to buy food.

This makes sense for a few reasons, namely:

If he simply buys larger quantities of the items he currently eats, there’s a good chance he will save money. If he has three to six months of expenses set aside, then he is already planning on spending a portion of that money on food. There is no additional expense to holding some of his emergency fund in food rather than dollars.
If the disaster that causes him to tap into his emergency fund causes a breakdown in the supply chain for stores, he will be able to eat his emergency fund if some of it is in food rather than dollars.
If he is keeping his emergency fund in the bank and there is an emergency that affects the banking system, he is stuck. If he converts some of his emergency fund from dollars to food, then he will still be able to feed himself.
This is one of the most important points: food inflation. If you convert some of your emergency funds to food right now, you could get significantly more for your money than if you wait until an emergency happens. Food prices might go down; but droughts in China, bad U.S. money policies causing a weaker dollar and wasting farmland and corn to produce ethanol will all serve to keep food prices high and possibly push them higher.

You might need to actually pull out a pad of paper and write out some numbers on this. Let’s say that the person you’re talking with has $3,000 in his emergency fund. Ask him how much of that he would be willing to spend on food in an emergency. Let’s say it’s 20 percent, or $600. It may be more or less, but let’s use $600.

Whatever number he comes up with, ask him if there’s any reason why he wouldn’t want to go ahead and buy $600 of nonperishable foods before the prices go up.

If the light clicks with food, you can use the same line of reasoning to get him to keep extra fuel for his car, grill and heating system on hand, as well as any other necessities. This isn’t a complete survival plan, but it is a good, solid baby step.
Preparedness as Asset Allocation and Diversification

Asset allocation and portfolio diversification are strategies financial planners have been pushing for years to try to protect their clients from market risk. One oversimplified way of looking at it is that someone in his 20s who’s saving for retirement can stick all of his money in high-risk investments that have the potential for high rewards. As you get older and have less time to recover from any losses in your retirement account, you allocate a bigger and bigger percentage of your retirement money to conservative investments.

I recently talked with a gentleman who sells ranches and ranchettes who uses this exact strategy to sell properties. He’ll ask people how much of their retirement they have in very conservative investments that aren’t making them any money. When they give him a number, he figures out how big of a ranch or ranchette they could buy and stock with the same money in case TSHTF. Normally, they are people who have car insurance, homeowners insurance, health insurance, life insurance and sometimes long-term care insurance. This is simply a way of converting money that isn’t doing anything for them into SHTF insurance.

If you or a loved one has a big nest egg, this may be an approach you can take to talk with them about preparedness that will ring true with them.
If you aren’t at the stage in life at which you have money to go out and buy land, but you are saving for retirement and some of your money is going into very conservative investments, you might want to take some time and look at food storage and preparedness items as a great way to diversify your savings.

Are you a financial planner or stock broker and a prepper? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this approach. Have you used this approach to get to where you are today? Have you used this approach to get loved ones to buy into preparedness? Please share your experiences below. Do you have other strategies that you’ve used successfully to get loved ones on board with preparedness? Please share them below.

http://www.personalliberty.com/survi...es-to-prepare/

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-22-2011, 08:37 AM

Recession Leads To Significant Decline In Childrens Economic Well-Being

August 22, 2011 by Marcy Bonebright

According to a new report, the child poverty rate in America increased by 18 percent between 2000 and 2009.

According to a new report, the child poverty rate in America increased by 18 percent between 2000 and 2009, which is essentially a return to the same level as the 1990s. This shows a significant decline in economic well-being for low-income children and families.

Released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in its annual KIDS COUNT Data Book, the report tracked 10 measures of child well-being, and found evidence of the recession’s impact on children — 11 percent of children had at least one unemployed parent, and 4 percent have been affected by foreclosure since 2007.

According to a press release, three areas of child well-being have worsened: the percentage of babies born with low birth-weight, the child poverty rate and the percentage of children living in single-parent families.

“In 2009, 42 percent of our nation’s children, or 31 million, lived in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty line or $43,512/year for a family of four, a minimum needed for most families to make ends meet,” said Laura Speer, associate director for Policy Reform and Data at the Foundation.

“The recent recession has wiped out many of the economic gains for children that occurred in the late 1990s. Nearly 8 million children lived with at least one parent who was actively seeking employment but was unemployed in 2010. This is double the number in 2007, just three years earlier. The news about the number of children who were affected by foreclosure in the United States is also very troubling because these economic challenges greatly hinder the well-being of families and the nation.”

However, according to the report, some areas have improved: the infant mortality rate, child death rate, teen death rate, teen birth rate and the percentage of teens not in school and not high school graduates.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/...l-being-38888/

**AirborneSapper7** · 08-23-2011, 04:35 AM

FDA: Would ban all nutritional and supplemental ingredients

Obama Attacks Nutrition

Alan Caruba Monday, August 22, 2011

While watching a television commercial for some prescription medication, have you ever wondered why something it states may kill you or cause serious side effects ever was permitted to be marketed to the public?

For decades I have taken a full range of vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements every morning. I don’t get head colds or any unwanted side affects. In my seventh decade, I enjoy exceptional good health. An annual physical check up is always the same. I am fine.

Millions of Americans benefit from a daily regimen of vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements. Athletes use whey protein powders. Body builders take amino acids. Others augment food products that lack sufficient nutritional value. Their health and wellness is now threatened by the Obama administration’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Banning Health!

On the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend, the FDA published a 47-page document, that would ban all nutritional and supplemental ingredients by requiring them to file documentation involving multi-million-dollar testing and the regulations would be retroactive to 1994!

This will destroy the manufacturers of these products because most are small companies that could not afford such costs. It’s not like there is a vast body of information that demonstrates any threat to health from vitamins and minerals. Quite the contrary. There is ample information on their benefits. There are libraries filled with books devoted to this.

Who would benefit from such regulation of the natural supplement industry? Big Pharma. The same pharmaceutical companies that have a long record of putting forth FDA-approved medications that later prove to be lethal are looking to use the regulatory powers of FDA to literally increase levels of illness.
In the same way Obamacare has been demonstrated to not only be unconstitutional, but also a threat to the health of millions—especially senior citizens—this callous administration now threatens to remove from the shelves of stores that sell nutritional supplements, from pharmacies, and from supermarkets and other outlets, the vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements on which millions depend for wellness.

This constitutes a criminal conspiracy and Congress, which has ceded its law-making authority to the FDA, must hear from everyone in order to stop this assault on everyone’s health.

Frank Murray, the former editor of Better Nutrition, Great Life, and Let’s Live, is the author and co-author of fifty books on health and nutrition. They include Natural Supplements for Diabetes, Health Benefits Derived from Sweet Orange, and 100 Super Supplements for a Longer Life. He is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences.

One of Murray’s books, Sunshine and Vitamin D, notes that “With the hundreds of clinical trials published on Vitamin D in recent years—I read one study with 132 references—it is obvious that the ‘sunshine vitamin’ no longer has to play second fiddle to the other vitamins.” The same can be said for vitamins A, B, C, and E. All have amply demonstrated their value. Add to them, zink, potassium, selenium, and other mineral supplements. All those prostate advertisements are about herbal supplements!

The Obama administration that has made obesity its pet project is also famous for photos of the President eating every kind of fast food. It is rank hypocrisy, but the proposed FDA ban is literally life threatening.

Write, email, and fax your Representative and Senator to ensure that Congress intervenes with the FDA in the same fashion it is struggling to protect us against an out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency. In particular, contact the members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

Your life and the lives of your loved ones literally depend on stopping this attack on real nutrition.

Americans are losing the freedom they take for granted as Big Government intrudes on every personal choice they make. The Obama administration has demonstrated its total indifference to America’s senior citizens’ access to affordable medical care and now all Americans’ ability to access nutritional supplements.

You are being “protected” into an early grave!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39686