Government Controlled Food

#1

Found this interesting:

(Geoffrey) #2

It’s all about control.
Control of the people and control of the money.

I’m so thankful that I have the opportunity to raise much of what I eat.
To borrow a quote from a Bellamy Brothers song, “ He’s consuming what he’s growing nowadays in self defense”.

(KM) #3

Maybe it’s paranoia, but it’s probably my biggest phobia, that enormous personal effort can come to nothing because someone else can rewrite laws to suit their purposes. It’s one thing to choose the road less traveled and pay a price for it, entirely another to find that road blocked with guards and police tape.

(Joey) #4

It is interesting - thanks for sharing.

My problem with Massie is his judgment. He totally lost me recently when he was the sole “nay” vote against legislation simply affirming Israel’s right to exist as a country.

He asserted that the bill would preclude criticizing that country’s government. Needless to say, it does not. (The bill’s text was one-page long; the vote in the House was 412 in favor, 1 Massie opposed.)

So yes, I too am troubled by our government’s involvement in food control, but we also want them to keep the distribution chain safe from dangerous chemicals and disease-carrying bacteria/viruses.

So the challenge remains: whose beliefs about what is healthy vs dangerous will dictate such guardrails?

I have little confidence in our federal government to strike the right balance. I have even less confidence that Massie can figure this out for us.

#5

I’m not entirely convinced that’s a fair view. I find when I read further it isn’t just as simple as him not affirming Israel’s right to exist as a country. He has nothing against Israel at all. He also didn’t think the United States should be dictating conduct to other nations. Simple politically motivated headlines back in 2023 and even revisited now would make one think that’s all it was but it wasn’t. That bill promoted internet censorship and violations of the 1st amendment and he will protect his own nation first. As always it’s not just the title or summary of the bill but what is hidden or piggy backing it that matters too. He said charges of antisemitism are “simply not true” and that his objectives are to avoid “open-ended support” for Israel’s war and resist encroachments on free speech. Most of his nay votes are more to hold issues accountable when he believes they are a bad idea, because no one else will, and months/years later things end up being as bad as he predicted. I like that he refuses to go with the pack, even his own, but instead works for his constituents not the government. I think he is misunderstood because our government has grown to far exceed its purposes as provided in the constitution, and he questions a lot of the nonsense he sees our money (their time) being thrown to and how what it should go to is suffering.

However, I didn’t share the article to somehow garner support for him. I shared based on the content.

He does seem to want to stay on top of this issue with protecting our rights to grow our own food without legislative interference, having the right to choose who we purchase from, and having the right to know what is in our food and what has been done to it. I don’t see any others stepping up to fight for our rights in this area like him, but I wish they would.

As for anything else he stands for I am not going to cancel anybody based on just one disagreement I have with them but instead weigh their entire works and especially their reasoning. That’s how we got into our current political mess to begin with, judging based on headlines, media smears, and too little information. There will always be some compromise and give and take in a democracy.

(Joey) #6

@Just_Juju I certainly respect your position, but find it unconvincing.

First, if you haven’t done so, read the actual legislation.

It’s not what Massie asserts. It doesn’t impinge on speech; doesn’t even mention Zionism… just whether Israel has a right to exist as a country.

That’s why 412 others voted in support, many of whom are highly critical of Israel’s policies.

BILLS-118hres888ih.pdf (225.5 KB) (It showed up as 1 page on my screen … but is actually 2pp. in pdf)

To clarify, I’m certainly not cancelling Massie. I greatly admire his willingness to challenge group think. But I now find his judgment to be wacky.

So I will heavily scrutinize his future votes - just as I do epidemiological nutritional research - since I don’t trust the assumptions, judgments and clear-headedness underlying the positions taken.

Hope this helps clarify where I’m coming from. :vulcan_salute:

#7

Thanks for that link!! That showed me we were talking about two different bills.

Actually, there appears to be several bills/resolutions regarding Israel, probably more than even I’ve seen, and I believe they are all getting mixed up.

Another bill where he was the lone vote of no was 7 pages and H. RES. 1125 in 2022.

The one this year in 2024 the house passed Israel aid bill 366-58, with 37 Dem, 21 GOP votes in opposition

Another bill from 2023 was H. RES. 311

The one you are referring to H. RES 888 was last fall 2023.

All are related to Israel.

The more I look the more I’m noticing all the confusion.

I agree with you that based on Res 888 I found it really odd that he voted against that one. This is all I could find about his vote:

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the sole “No” vote against H. Res. 888, citing the language within the legislation.

“I agree with the title ‘Reaffirming the State of Israel’s Right to Exist’ and much of the language, but I’m voting No on the resolution because it equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Antisemitism is deplorable, but expanding it to include criticism of Israel is not helpful,” he said.

So cool to have such a thoughtful and pleasant interchange on politics. Are we two just that rare? Or is there hope for our country yet? :blush:

(Joey) #8

Like you, I find his stated rationale to be strange. If HR888 mentioned anti-Zionism he might even have a point, but it doesn’t, and even the fringe Progressives supported this one. Leaves me wondering if he was more interested in burnishing his contrarian brand as a lone “nay”? :man_shrugging:

Anyhow, many thanks for your followup - including your legwork in parsing through the barrage of overlapping bills - and your thoughtful replies.

I hold out hope for our country. But yeah, I’m afraid we’re kinda rare :wink:

#9

Yeah I didn’t see it mentioned in that one at all, but I did see it in other ones. So maybe he too is mixing all of them up when giving his reasons for his votes to the press? Or maybe he let his lackies do the reading for him on that one and they gave him the wrong summary and one of them messed up and misinformed him? Or maybe you’re right and he is just reflexively protecting his brand. Lol

Interesting. I bet this happens with all the representatives.

(Robin) #10

This thread is teetering on the brink of becoming political. Understandable. It was a natural progression.

But let’s keep it on the keto/food focus. Especially with current events. That would be another forum.

Read that in my sweet mom voice, please.
Just doing my job. :grin: