Man Or Other Animals (MOOA)
[courtesy of Google Images]
Therefore, there religious basis for resisting any law that relies on the government’s definitions of “food,” “drugs” and (medical) “devices”.
• If you visit the federal government’s Food and Drug Administration’s website at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Whatwedo/History/default.htm you’ll find a brief description of the FDA’s history.
According to that history,
“The Food and Drug Administration is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government. Its origins can be traced back to the appointment of Lewis Caleb Beck in the Patent Office around 1848 to carry out chemical analyses of agricultural products, a function that the newly created Department of Agriculture inherited in 1862. Although it was not known by its present name until 1930, FDA’s modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind this law and headed its enforcement in the early years, providing basic elements of protection that consumers had never known before that time.” [emphasis added]
I find that history extremely interesting because:
1) The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted and initially enforced by the Department of Agriculture—which deals with livestock and animals. Therefore, it’s not necessarily surprising that the original A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug act defined both “food” and “drugs” terms of “animals”.
2) Sometime in the 1930’s (probably A.D. 1933 or later), the FDA grew out of the Department of Agriculture—which naturally dealt with livestock and animals. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Deparatment of Agriculture’s “animal” legacy colored the FDA’s subsequent operations.
3) The A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act is neither lengthy nor complex. The fact that it took a quarter century to be enacted might be explained by the fact that it was a big step forward in potentially unconstitutional legislation—or, it might be explained by the fact that that Act treated the people as animals and was therefore resisted by many members of Congress. In fact, it may be that, under the Constitution, the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act could never have been applied to People. It may be that in order to have passed that Act, the Congress had to agree that it would only be applied to “animals”—not men or woman “made in God’s image”.
4) If it took 25 years to enact the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, that act had to have been initially proposed back about A.D. 1881. This implies that forces were at work within the government pushing to degrade the people to the status of ANIMALS as early as A.D. 1881—just 16 years after the end of the Civil War and passage of the 13th Amendment, and 13 years after passage of the 14th Amendment and the freeing of the slaves (who had been presumed to be animals). Thus, the forces in favor of treating the people as animals remained strong despite the 13th and 14th Amendments. People in power have wanted to treat the people of the USA as animals, property and slaves for a long, long time.
5) If Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug act, he should be researched to discover the nature of his faith, politics and values. Was he a Satanist? Atheist? Associated with any globalist, one-world order, Illuminati-like groups? What compelled him to pass a law that would degrade the American people to the status of “animals”?
6) Most importantly, the FDA describes itself as “the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government.” Given that the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act defined “food” and “drugs” in terms of “man or other animals,” it’s clear that that Act applied only to “animals”. Insofar as the FDA is a “consumer protection agency,” does it follow that all “consumers” are presumed by the government to be “animals”?
I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet that’s true.
More, if the FDA is America’s “oldest consumer protection agency,” it could follow that the FDA may have been the first to establish the definition for “consumers” as “animals”.
Subsequent agencies may have adopted that definition when they sought to “protect” the “consumers”.
Implication: It may be hazardous to your health to allow yourself to be deemed a “consumer”.
More, you might be able to resist the authority of any federal bureaucracy that claimed to be involved in “consumer protection” by arguing that such agency regulates “animals” and you can’t be one under your Christian or Jewish faith.