Smart Money

“I think we’re on the ragged edge, and this Austin thing is a clear warning shot across the bow,” says Doug Casey, reflecting on last week’s aerial suicide attack on a federal building in Texas housing IRS offices.

“When individuals start taking actions like this, it can change things. An army of one can sting, but what happens when you have 100,000 armies of one? Or a couple million? Just think of what would have happened back before World War II in Germany if each one of the millions of Jews and Gypsies and others the Nazis rounded up had fought back. The death camps were made possible by people who, although they had the capacity to act like wolves, acted like sheep.

“I’m not saying things will go that way in the U.S. But I do think there’s increasing resentment on the part of the average citizen against those who work for ‘The Man.’”

From The 5 Minute Forecast

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget.  The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You  and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.  In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority.  They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.  I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.  The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.  They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall..  No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..  The president can only propose a budget.  He cannot force the Congress to accept  it..

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.  Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi.  She is the leader of the majority party.  She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.  If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of  incompetence and irresponsibility.  I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.  When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in  IRAQ ,  it’s because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.  Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

By Porter Stansberry

I’d like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment…

Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in — as long as it’s legal. But I can’t give you any capital — you have to come up with that on your own. And I won’t give you any labor — that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand that you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business.

That’s my role: to tell you what to do.

In return for telling you what to do, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits. You’re also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees, because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how.

Come on! You’re my partner. It’s only “fair.”

Now… after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out — to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is “fair” (some people never can afford to retire) is a different argument. As your partner, I’m happy for you to sell your share of the business whenever you’d like… because our agreement says that, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know. I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all the labor. That’s true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.

Oh. And one more thing…

Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees… I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth. After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you. We don’t think it’s “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for them.

All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur… if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hardworking people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you’ll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me. But it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it, because if you ever try to stiff me — or cheat me on any of my fees or rules — I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail. That’s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn’t it?

That’s the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

Dear Reader,

Back in 2008 the Bushwacker got Congress to go along with an alleged $700 Billion bailout of the banking industry.

Since then, thanks to King Obama, with direct loans, guarantees, and other promises, we the people are on the hook for as much as $23 TRILLION.

That works out to about $70,000 for every man, woman, and child in this debt ridden country.

A few days ago my brother-in-law’s wife gave birth to a beautiful little girl. I haven’t seen even a picture of her yet; but, if she looks like her mama, she’s beautiful. Imagine. A few days old and she’s already $70,000 in debt. Imagine what she’ll owe by the time she starts high school.

What have we gotten for our generous gifts?

Banks still aren’t loaning money. They’re charging higher interest rates, especially on credit cards. They’ve raised fees for such things as over drafts, over limit fees, late charges, and anything else they think they can get away with. They’ve lowered most everyone’s credit limit. They are aggressively foreclosing on homes and throwing families out in the street. They’re repossessing cars left and right and leaving people without a way to get back and forth to work, assuming they still have a job.

That’s gratitude for ya!

What if Congress had done things a little differently?

Instead of giving all this money to the banks, they gave us our own money?

We could pay off our credit card debts. Our mortgages. Our car loans. And what ever else we might owe.

We the people would be out of debt and the banks wouldn’t have those “toxic assets” to deal with. They would be paid off. We would still have to come up with the same $23 TRILLION or $70,000 for every man, woman, and child some time in the future; but hey, we could afford it now. We’re out of debt.

Or, even better. How about this weird, off the wall idea…

Congress could have done what the Constitution calls for – NOTHING.

Something smart, honest people would have DEMANDED.

Then, all these banks which have been run into the ground by a bunch of inept, incompetent, morons would have gone belly up. They, in turn, would have taken all our debts with them.

We wouldn’t owe the now non-existent bank for any credit cards, or mortgages, or car loans, or any loan. These greedy little parasites wouldn’t exist.

And, just as importantly, we wouldn’t owe $23 TRILLION or $70,000 for every man, woman, or child, in future taxes.

But, as Forrest Gump’s Mama used to say: Stupid is as stupid does.

Respectfully,

Jim

Dear Reader,

This is something everyone should think about and consider…

Separating People From Government
Linguistic Tools For
Seeing Your World More Clearly

Dear A-Letter Reader,

On the advice of the good doctor Ron Paul, I’ve made a few changes to the way I speak and write over the last few years. And one of those changes has helped make a crucial difference in the way I see and think about our country…

Dr. Paul insists that when we’re talking about our government, we say “The U.S. government” and not simply, “the US,” as you’ll often hear in the foreign media. So – for example – instead of talking about how “the U.S. plans to spend a trillion in stimulus,” you say “the U.S. government plans to spend a trillion in stimulus…”

It sounds like a miniscule change…something you’ll barely notice at first. But over the coming weeks and months, it will help you to make a critical distinction in your mind. The distinction between the people of the United States and their elected representatives.

It will remind you that those entities are separate. That one’s decision doesn’t necessarily imply the complicit cooperation of the other. That the elected officials of the U.S. don’t carry some kind of universal, unanimous mandate of the people.

This might sound a little fractious…a little rebellious or even *gasp* against the grain of blind nationalism. But then again nationalism and the truth never made for great bedfellows.

The Sovereign Society

Choosing between McCain and Obama is like choosing between the electric chair and lethal injection.  You’re still dead.

Why not choose freedom and independence?  Stay at home - withdraw your support.  Choose “none of the above.”

To all of you wannabe Americans who still think caving and kissing ass is the answer:

Dear Reader,

Out in New Mexico, some little guys are fighting some big guys who happen to be government guys who also happen to be acting like bullies.

Do you tend to root for the underdog? Do you enjoy seeing bullies get their comeuppance?

Then I’ve got a good story for you�

————————————————————-
Dark shadow
————————————————————-

Let’s say there’s a government website that acknowledges evidence that milk thistle is “hepatoprotective” (that is, it protects the liver). And let’s say there’s another government website that offers this quote about milk thistle: “It has been used for thousands of years as a remedy for a variety of ailments, especially liver problems.”

Okay. As it happens, you manufacture and sell a milk thistle product, so on your website you post something like this: “The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (a division of the National Institutes of Health) states that milk thistle has been used for thousands of years as a remedy for a variety of ailments, especially liver problems.”

What are you doing? You’re stating the truth about an historical fact. Not only that, it’s a fact backed up by a direct quote from a government agency.

Guess what? You can’t do that.

Who says? The FTC. And they’re willing to take away your company and bankrupt you to prove their point.

So what do you do? Most companies roll over and comply when the FTC shadow darkens their door. But not you. You sue the bullies. And you just might make history.

————————————————————-
Way over the top
————————————————————-

For about 15 years, Mark and Marianne Hershiser have operated Native Essence Herb Company, just outside of Taos, New Mexico. They started their business with a single herbal tea, then slowly expanded to offer many individual herbs and herbal formulas.

This past spring they received a letter from the Western Region of the FTC, stating that they had violated the FTC Act by making deceptive claims. Acting like a “good cop,” the Western Region letter notes that the Hershisers could avoid litigation from the FTC “bad cop” by removing the claims from their website and signing a settlement agreement. Failure to respond would result in legal action that would include, “�appointment of a receiver to exercise control over the company�and an asset freeze�”

The letter states that the FTC also directed the Western Region office to seek from the company an amount equal to revenues from the sales of certain products � that is: ALL revenues accumulated over the years the products were sold.

In other words: Comply or we’ll take your business and bury you in debt.

Late last month the Hershisers responded in a way no one had ever responded to such a letter. They sued. Citing the First Amendment, the Hershisers claim they have the right to truthfully inform customers about the historical uses of individual herbs (as noted on government websites) and to share the conclusions of government-sponsored studies.

In a statement issued by the office of Richard A. Jaffe, the Hershisers’ attorney, Mr. Jaffe said, “This is a precedent-setting case. The issue has never been litigated; it not only affects the Hershisers, but all companies which sell herbal products.”

We can only hope that someone at the FTC is squirming uncomfortably. And hopefully that discomfort will steadily increase as the case goes on.

You can be sure I’ll closely follow the Hershisers’ progress, and I’ll keep you posted on how they fare in their fight with these government bullies. Meanwhile, you can read more about their case (and contribute to their legal fund, if you like) at this website: herbalinformation.com.

Real Americans face their problems - deal with them. �They don’t run and hide.

Enjoy…

Jim

Dear Reader,

A few weeks ago we witnessed a political act of such unimaginable stupidity, it is hard to not choke at the mention of it.

A cursory review of the details is worth a minute of your time. This compliments of The Oil & Gas Journal …

�WASHINGTON, DC, May 20 � The US House passed, by a vote of 324 to 84, a bill that would create a new oil antitrust task force within the Department of Justice. Supporters of HR 6074, which also would give DOJ authority to sue foreign oil cartels for violating US antitrust laws, included 103 Republicans, according to its sponsor Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.).

��Until we finally have an energy policy other than drill-and-burn, this bill will begin to set things right for the American people. We cannot drill or grow our way out of this energy crisis. We must begin to think differently in America. That includes loosening the stranglehold other nations have on our economy and exploring new forms of energy,� he said following the vote.

�The new �Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force� would be charged with determining the existence and extent of gasoline price gouging, anticompetitive price discrimination by refiners, actions to inflate prices by constraining supplies, and possible oil price manipulation in futures markets, Kagen said.

�The bill, which would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act, also requests a Government Accountability Office study on the effects on competition of prior oil industry mergers and divestitures, he indicated.

��This legislation will address the loopholes and exemptions that oil companies exploit at the great expense of our citizens,� Kagen said. �By passing the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, the House agrees that it is time to give US authorities the ability to prosecute the anticompetitive conduct committed by international cartels that restricts supply and drives up prices.��

Now, unless you were informed upon entering your sixth year of grammar school at the age of 21 that you�d have to stay back another year, you�ll recognize this latest bit of pandering as stupidity so profound as to bring a sane man to his knees.

For one, oil is a global market and the members of OPEC include the world�s largest suppliers to that market. In a world of increasing demand bumping up against flattening global production, these are not the people one wants to alienate � that is, if we want to drive our cars and tractors and heat our houses with something other than broken bits of heirloom furniture.

Threatening to sue them, or worse, actually suing them, is unlikely to bring a warm response. Can you imagine the oil sheiks being made to present themselves in the docket in a U.S. Court? (If Homeland Security would let them through the airports, that is). Oh, what a fine media circus that would be! Frankly, if subpoenaed, I think they�ll just refuse to show. And what then?

Secondly, it also reinforces the fiction that the members of OPEC can actually do something to increase their production, as opposed to just talk about it. It reminds me of Saddam�s pledge to unleash the �Mother of All Wars� against the U.S. Forces… which turned out to be more like the �Mother of All Foot Races to the Rear�.

The way the OPEC quotas are assigned, the bigger the reserves a member state reports, the more production the member is allowed to sell. Which is why, since the upward reserve adjustments of the late 1980s � made in anticipation of the revision to the OPEC quota system � there have been virtually no reserve declines reported by OPEC members. It�s as if a magic oil genie resides under the ground, providing oil in unlimited quantities with a twitch of the nose or a nod of the head over crossed arms.

Put more directly, the current reserves are a fantasy, and the ability of OPEC to actually raise production is greatly constrained.

But there is more in this legislation to dislike. Much more. For one, it contains the implicit assumption that all levels of the energy business are corrupt, and the executives of all these firms spend long hours in cigar smoke-filled rooms plotting and scheming to take every advantage of hard-working Americans.

In other words, it declares legal open season on every layer of the energy distribution network. That, of course, means millions of dollars of legal fees, wasted time and, worst of all, more hand-tying regulation… the net result of which will be fewer, not more, energy resources being made available to North American markets.

Do I have a problem with the large energy companies making �obscene� profits?

Not at all. They are going to need all the money they can muster to replace their declining reserves and to fight off fierce competitors from the rest of the world. Competitors, it must be pointed out, unhindered by the perfect-worlders and political panderers that are now playing so effectively to democracy�s weak suit.

Twenty years ago, which was seven years after the link between the U.S. dollar and gold was severed in 1971, oil was selling, on average, for $13.38 per barrel. Adjusting for inflation � using the Shadow Stats and not the government�s laughable CPI � in today�s dollars that same barrel of oil would cost $124.

That it is trading for slightly over that amount, at $133 per bbl, is entirely explainable based on supply/demand constraints, war in the Middle East and the fear of a widening conflict.

In other words, blaming evil-eyed Middle Eastern potentates or bloodless speculators is attributing blame in the wrong direction. If you want to hit the right target, start with the fiat currency system which has systematically reduced the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and all of its similarly unbacked peers to the level of Monopoly money.

Unfortunately, I don�t see any new legislation on the horizon calling the Fed and the Treasury to account for their role in the higher prices now getting so much attention.

by David Galland

Dear Reader,

There is a looming problem for the renewable energy business. It affects the geothermal producers. As the expression goes, �We need to talk.�

I have argued over and over that in an energy-short future, geothermal power will play a key role in meeting power needs. Geothermal systems are well-known technology, at least to people who follow the technology. And some geothermal fields have been making power for many decades. So there�s a real track record for geothermal, unlike for many other alleged technological �solutions� to the energy problems of our time.

Geothermal offers some unique benefits. It is �clean,� emitting essentially no carbon dioxide (CO2). Plus, geothermal comes with its own fuel supply, namely the heat of the Earth. That is, once you drill the wells, you don�t have to buy coal or oil or natural gas over the decades of operation. In essence, when you set up a geothermal power system, you are �buying� not just the installation, but also the fuel upfront.

Keep that last point in mind. Geothermal has higher upfront capital costs. But it has far lower operational costs over the life of the project. It�s like buying a car and never having to buy any more gasoline.

So geothermal works. But like most good things in life, it requires a specific skill set up and down the industrial ladder.

And there is no geothermal fairy waving a magic wand and ZAP, you have electrons in the grid. From exploration to drilling to development to spinning turbines, you have to know what you are doing in the geothermal field. This includes accounting for the costs of operation and production.

OK, here is the issue. Under current U.S. tax law, a power producer gets an income tax credit (called a �production tax credit,� or PTC) for producing electricity using renewable energy resources. This includes geothermal, as well as wind, biomass, low-head hydropower, landfill gas and even trash combustion.

The PTC is a key part of the economics of geothermal. The prospect of the eventual PTC helps get projects funded and developed. The PTC helps overcome the higher upfront capital costs to drill into the Earth�s hot spots.

So the PTC offers some serious incentive for geothermal development. A taxpayer can claim the PTC for 10 years, beginning on the date the qualified facility is placed in service. But under current tax law, in order to qualify for the credit, the geothermal facilities must be placed in service by Dec. 31, 2008.

In the past, Congress has set the PTC to last for two years, and has renewed it periodically. When Congress has not renewed the PRC, investment in renewable energy systems has crashed the next year. See how in this graph (Page 19 of 29).

Do you see the pattern? Boom-crash. Boom-crash. Boom-crash. Then Congress extended the PTC in 2006, so the installed base of power systems began to take off in the past couple years. Renewable power is gaining traction.

But for some strange reason, Congress has not extended the PTC beyond Dec. 31 of this year. So starting Jan. 1, 2009, the tax incentive for renewable energy in the U.S. will expire and go away. Poof. Gone. Adios.

Really, can you imagine anything more stupid than eliminating the PTC in the midst of the current round of skyrocketing energy costs? Oil hit $135 per barrel a couple weeks ago. Natural gas is in the midst of a stealth rally to over $12 per mcf. Coal is so expensive some producers are signing �open contracts,� meaning they promise to deliver, but won�t tell you the price until you take the coal in a couple years.

And while fossil fuel costs are shooting up, Congress, apparently, wants to put at risk any new investment in renewable energy systems after the end of this year.

Whoever is the next U.S. president � of either political party � do you want him immediately to confront a crash in investment in renewable power systems? What a way to tie the hands of the next president as he tackles the nation�s energy problems.

The good news is that the Senate has passed a bill called S. 2821, the bipartisan Cantwell-Ensign Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008. S. 2821 has 43 co-sponsors. It provides for the limited continuation of the PTC for renewable energy. The Senate vote was 88-8 in favor.

There is a companion bill in the House, called H.R. 5984, with 70 co-sponsors. There is another version of this bill called H.R. 197, the �Pomeroy bill.� But both versions are being blocked by the �pay-as-you-go� (PAYGO) rule that prevents �tax cuts� without corresponding tax increases.

But wait a minute. Extending the PTC is not a �tax cut.� The PTC is already in effect. So extending it will just be continuing the status quo.

And does the government really think it will raise more revenue if the PTC goes away? C�mon. It�s more like how much revenue will the government LOSE if investment in renewable energy systems takes its characteristic plunge when the PTC goes away. How many jobs will go away? How much progress will we just toss?

The logic of PAYGO governance at work in Washington, D.C., has Congress believing that extending the PTC to promote renewable energy development � in the midst of soaring costs for fossil fuels � is something that the U.S. cannot afford to do. Actually, we cannot afford NOT to develop renewable energy systems.

This makes so little sense that we could all have a good chuckle if it were not such a serious issue of national energy policy. What does it take for Congress to figure this out? Do the lights really have to flicker and die before the issue gets some attention?

So I�m asking you to contact your member of Congress and confront him or her with this issue. The future of the renewable energy industry in the U.S. depends on this.

Action to take: Contact your representative and urge him or her to support H.R. 5984 or the alternative H.R. 197, called the �Pomeroy bill.�

Here is a link to find the contact information for your member of Congress.

Shoot me an e-mail (OI@agorafinancial.com ) to let me know what you hear. Thanks for your help on this one.

You�ll be helping yourself, and helping the country,

Byron W. King

Here’s another example of how those people who call themselves “government” care about your welfare:

Dear Reader,

Spongy degeneration of the brain � that’s what happens when cattle develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA officials have developed a similar spongy brain problem with their strict policy that beef producers are not allowed to test their own animals for mad cow disease.

Now I’ll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy � BSE) is very rare. But if a meat producer wants to test his cattle, what’s the harm? Why would the USDA step in and prevent the testing?

Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That’s what drives decisions about our food safety. And you really won’t believe the hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify this insanity.

——————————————–
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
——————————————–

On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone Farms in Arkansas City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit.

Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large, modern operation has produced high quality beef that’s guaranteed free of antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By and large, Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef product most consumers purchase at their local grocery.

With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone’s business dropped off sharply, primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat buyers promised to start buying again if Creekstone executives could assure them that all their beef was tested for BSE.

This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report, Creekstone’s foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese market.

Enter the USDA � to the rescue!

In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop testing their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific justification for testing the relatively young animals that Creekstone raises. And that’s a valid point. Only older cattle develop BSE. But that detail didn’t matter to Creekstone’s Japanese customers � they wanted guarantees that the animals were disease-free. So�what’s the harm in testing?

And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one: According to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies feared that consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat producing company to test all their animals.

And wouldn’t that be just too�safe?

I’ll bet the ranch that “consumer pressure” doesn’t mean you and me � it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-antibiotic, no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business for ConAgra and Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit!

——————————————–
False assurances, served fresh
——————————————–

So Creekstone execs did what they had to do � they sued the USDA. And they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn’t help themselves � they appealed, further delaying Creekstone’s right to test.

Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008, when Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared before a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C.

Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any law or regulation by testing their animals. Nice point.

And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice Department attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives “want to create false assurances.”

Seriously � how do you make a statement like that without laughing? As if more testing creates false assurances, and less testing is somehow reassuring.

You want false assurances? Here’s a Grade A, USDA-inspected false assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all U.S. cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported that the testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to absolutely assure that these testing levels stay low, the agency also blocks companies that produce BSE testing kits from selling their kits to Creekstone and other meat processors.

Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as little BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might answer that question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports the agency’s Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of the most diverse and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway.

Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

So, you can imagine just how much they care about your financial well being. Maybe that’s why they turned it over to a private organization called the “Federal Reserve.”

The above article is from HSI. A free newsletter you might want to consider.

Jim