Thursday, May 22, 2014

Large Pig Study Reveals Significant Inflammatory Response to Genetically Engineered Foods

Top: Lesser cornstalk borer larvae extensively...
Top: Lesser cornstalk borer larvae extensively damaged the leaves of this unprotected peanut plant. (Image Number K8664-2)-Photo by Herb Pilcher. Bottom: After only a few bites of peanut leaves of this genetically engineered plant (containing the genes of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria), this lesser cornstalk borer larva crawled off the leaf and died. (Image Number K8664-1)-Photo by Herb Pilcher. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Click HERE to watch the full interview! 

By Dr. Mercola
If you're like me, you've probably been asked by many of your friends and relatives why you believe genetically engineered (GE) foods are unsafe. Dr. Judy Carman, one of the few researchers in the world who has carefully and independently evaluated this question, can help you provide answers to your friends and family.
Dr. Carman has degrees in both epidemiology and medicine, specifically in the field of nutritional biochemistry in metabolic regulation in relation to cancer, and her research into GE foods provides compelling evidence for avoiding such foods if you value your health, and want to protect the health of your children as they grow older.
Her background involves both cancer research, and work as a senior epidemiologist in Australian government, investigating outbreaks of disease. She's currently an adjunct associate professor at Flinders University in South Australia, as well as the director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER).

Independent GMO Researchers Face Many Challenging Hurdles

As one of the few researchers looking into the effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Dr. Carman is no stranger to the many challenges that this kind of research entails. The biotechnology industry has devised a rather clever and sophisticated control system that largely prevents independent research of their products.
"Yes, there are a number of problems for anyone doing research," she notes. "They usually center around getting the money to be able to do the research... But you also need to get the materials to test. In this case, it's the seeds from the genetically modified (GM) plants... But it's very difficult to get GM seeds to test.
If a farmer wants to buy seeds to plant in the field, the farmer has to sign a technology user agreement, which means [he]... is not allowed to do any research on those seeds, and is not allowed to give them to anyone else to do research on either.
You basically have to find some way around that that's legal – and we did, but it took us quite some time. Otherwise, you need to go to the industry to ask, 'Pretty please, can we have some seeds?' We did that as well. The conditions placed upon us getting those seeds were such that we couldn't legitimately try and get the seeds from most companies."
Besides the hurdle of obtaining the GE seeds in question, protected as they are by rigid patent laws, researchers who venture into GMO research must also be prepared to survive the personal and professional discrediting and abuse that comes with the territory.
Truly, anyone who does this kind of research must be close to sainthood, as those who reveal negative findings are figuratively speaking "tarred and feathered" for their efforts. Most must endure being personally attacked and vilified, and many have had their entire career stripped from them in the process.
In the last six years, Dr. Carman has survived six different attempts to have her removed from her various university positions, for example. As she notes later in this interview, she was largely "protected" by the fact that she knew this going into the research, and chose to stop receiving a salary and getting paid for her work.
Funding is another major barrier, of course. Because most of the agricultural universities—the ones that would conduct these studies—obtain their funding from the very companies that make the seeds, they're not interested in research that might jeopardize this lucrative relationship with the industry. In Dr. Carman's case, her team was fortunate enough to obtain the funding for their research from the government of Western Australia.

Why Industry Safety Assessments Rarely Reveal the Truth

Most pigs raised in American piggeries are fed a GE diet these days; typically, a mixture of GE soy and corn. Howard Vlieger, who is the second co-author of the study, had noticed differences in pigs fed a GE diet compared to those given non-GE feed, and he was one of the primary instigators of the investigation. Dr. Carman explains what got them started:
"The two main things he was seeing was an increase in intestinal problems in pigs fed GM feed, particularly an increase in stomach inflammation. He was also seeing things such as a thinning of intestinal walls, and hemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can... bleed out from its bowel within 15 or so minutes.
The other thing he was seeing was a reduced ability to conceive in the sows (female pigs) and higher rates of miscarriage in female pigs fed GM crops. [In] communities in the United States that still use boars to inseminate their sows... he was also seeing a reduction in the number of piglets born."
They decided to take a proper look at these phenomena. Dr. Carman has been an outspoken critic of the protocols used by the genetically modified food industry for their safety assessments, so she was careful about the design of her own study. Generally, industry safety protocols fall into two main camps:
  1. What the industry calls a "safety assessment" is really nothing more than an animal production study, Dr. Carman notes. Using significant numbers of animals, they feed some the GE crop, and another group gets non-GE feed.
  2. But the outcomes industry researchers look for are typically irrelevant to human health. These studies are basically done to reassure primary livestock producers that if you feed this GM feed to your animals, they will live long enough to get to market and produce a good yield.
  3. The second type of studies done are animal studies to determine if a product is going to harm human health. These are quite rare within the GE industry. Here, a very small number of animals are typically used, who are then given GE feed. Sometimes, however, they may not even feed the animals with the GE crop in question. Instead, they might just use the "active ingredient" or in this case the particular plant protein that has been inserted into the plant.
  4. For example, a small number of animals might receive a GE protein, and the effects of a singular dose are then noted over the course of seven to 14 days. If the animal (usually a rat) doesn't die, all is presumed to be well. Crazy as it seems, this is sometimes the main safety assessment performed by the industry. Even more remarkable, sometimes, the protein tested doesn't even come from the actual GE plant, but rather from the bacteria they genetically engineer to produce what they hope is the same protein. As Dr. Carman notes, this kind of testing is not going to reveal the long-term health outcomes associated with eating the GE food over the course of years, or an entire lifetime.

In Search of Statistical Significance

Dr. Carman's team decided to use pigs instead of rats. Adverse effects have already been observed in pigs raised on GE feed, and the digestive organs in pigs are very similar to those in humans. They also decided to feed them long enough for adverse effects to actually be found.  As soon as the piglets were weaned, they were randomly assigned to receive either GE or non-GE feed, and they were fed the same feed for their entire commercial lifespan, which is about five months.
At that point, the now fully mature (and very large) animals were slaughtered according to industry standards. All personnel involved in the study were blinded, including the veterinarians who performed the autopsies at the end of the study, meaning no one knew beforehand which animals were receiving which feed. Two years ago, the first-ever lifetime animal feeding studyinvolving GE corn revealed major health problems, including massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and early death. That study, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, also attempted to separate out the effects of glyphosate.
To do so, some rats were given GE corn that had not been sprayed with glyphosate, while others were given conventional GE corn that had been sprayed. Yet another group received glyphosate in water, but no GE feed. All suffered serious health consequences, although the combination of glyphosate and GE corn was the worst.
"In my view, he needed to have more animals to be able to find statistical significance," Dr. Carman says. "That's what we did in the pig study. We made sure that we had large numbers of pigs, so that if there was anything biologically significant happening, we would pick it up in the statistics. We had 168 just-weaned pigs. We split them into two groups: one fed GM feed and the other fed non-GM feed. We had 84 pigs per group. That made quite a lot of difference. We were able to do some more elaborate statistics and actually hunt down some hypotheses within the statistics that we used." 

Pig Study Reveals Significant Stomach Inflammation

The sad reality though is that pigs are not just fed one GE crop at a time. As mentioned earlier, they're fed combinations of GE crops, typically GE soy and corn. Dr. Carman used Roundup-ready soy – designed to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, so that the herbicide will only kill surrounding weeds—along with a couple of different GE corn varieties. "We were in effect feeding three GM genes and their protein products to these pigs at the same time," she explains.
This was also done in order to simulate the diet of a typical American who, just like pigs raised in a conventional piggery, will eat a variety of different GE corn crops, not just one specific one at a time.Besides the fact that there are different kinds of GE crops, such as Roundup Ready and Bt, more than 37 percent of the GE crops grown in the US are "stacked" gene crops, meaning they're not just resistant to Roundup, they also have one or two Bt genes in it. So eating foods that have two or more genetically modified genes in it is pretty standard in terms of what you'll find in the typical American diet.
"These pigs were eating the Roundup-ready gene, its protein product, two Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins, and the proteins from the two Bt genes, which are designed to produce insecticidal proteins. I suspect that the reason why we got such strong stomach inflammation was the interaction between the proteins that the animals were eating," she says.
At the end of the study, Dr. Carman's team discovered a significant increase in stomach inflammation in the pigs fed a GE diet. Overall, inflammation levels were 2.6 times higher in GE-fed pigs than those fed a non-GE diet, and male pigs fared worse than the females. While sows were 2.2 times more likely to have severe stomach inflammation on a GE diet, male pigs were four times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation.
"And when I say 'severe,' I'm talking about a stomach that is swollen and cherry red in color over almost the entire surface of the stomach. This is not the sort of stomach that you or I would want to have at all," she says.
To see the results for yourself, visit The uterus was also 25 percent heavier in sows fed GE feed. Both of these findings were biologically and statistically significant. In their paper, Dr. Carman discuss the disease states this kind of uterine enlargement might represent.
"The two main things that we were looking at here and the two main things that Howard Vlieger flagged as a problem—as things that he was seeing in livestock, particularly in pigs—were both things we found statistical significance for: (1) digestive health problems, particularly inflammation in the stomach, and also (2) reproductive issues. In this case, we've found this increased uterus weight," she says.  

Can We Put the Genie Back in the Bottle?

I sincerely believe that if you expose people to genetically engineered foods for a long enough time, we're going to see dramatic increases in disease. My own efforts are all geared toward reducing the number of people affected. And my recommendation is clear: avoid GE foods, and for as long as such foods are not required to be labeled, avoid them by purchasing organic foods. Without labeling, that's the only real workaround at your disposal.
As noted by Dr. Carman, the chemical technology industry is NOT doing a good enough job ensuring safety before putting their genetically altered products into the food system. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions have already been exposed. And without knowing it, they've fed GE foods of highly questionable safety to their children, day in and day out, perhaps for years already.
Have GE crops contributed to the increased chronic disease burden in the US, especially in children? While the industry says "no way," I believe the evidence suggests otherwise. We have to remember that humans live around 80 years, and this gigantic GE food experiment only began in earnest less than 20 years old ago—even less if you start counting from when GMOs became really prevalent in processed foods. Hence, we may be decades away from tabulating the human casualties. This is why long-term safety studies on animals are so critical, as rats and pigs have far shorter lifespans than humans.

Silencing Scientific Dissent

Dr. Carman's research, as well as Seralini's, really suggests we need to exercise the precautionary principle and avoid these foods. Needless to say, however, the chemical technology companies that created these crops are in the business of protecting and expanding business, not voluntarily shutting themselves down, and they've proven they're willing to go to great lengths to protect profits. Ruining a researcher's reputation and livelihood is nothing in the big scheme of things to a multinational giant like Monsanto.
The Corbett Report above discusses some of the less-than-honorable methods used by industry to silence dissenters—especially scientists whose research doesn't jibe with preconceived industry decisions. The list of victims—researchers who published research detrimental to the industry's bottom line—is long, and growing.
As mentioned earlier, the findings from Séralini's lifetime feeding study, which was published in Elsevier's peer-reviewed journalFood and Chemical Toxicology, were an absolute bombshell. The study was, and still is, among the best evidence of the toxic effects of GE foods. Of utmost importance, Séralini's study showed that the major onslaught of diseases really set in during the 13th month of the experiment, strongly suggesting that industry-funded studies have simply been too short for problems to be detected. Consider this: if 24 months of a rat's life equates to about 80 years of your child's, the 13-month mark would be somewhere in your child's early to mid-40s.
The industry immediately went on the offensive. Then, in what appears to have been a last ditch effort to get rid of this stubbornly incriminating study, the publisher (Elsevier) simply retracted it, for no other reason than its findings were deemed to beinconclusive. The thing is, inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction1... Elsevier's actions caused a major backlash, and has undoubtedly opened more than a few eyes to the reality of censorship of "unwanted" research. Even the National Institutes for Health (NIH) scolded Elsevier in an editorial2 titled: "Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don't!"

Harassment, Par for the Course

Another poster child for researchers harassed to their wits' end is Tyrone Hayes,3 whose Atrazine research turned his life into a paranoid nightmare. Rachael Aviv told his story in a February 10 article in The New Yorker.4 In the late 1990s, Hayes conducted experiments on the herbicide for its maker, Syngenta. As reported by Aviv:
"...when Hayes discovered that Atrazine might impede the sexual development of frogs, his dealings with Syngenta became strained, and, in November, 2000, he ended his relationship with the company. Hayes continued studying Atrazine on his own, and soon he became convinced that Syngenta representatives were following him to conferences around the world. He worried that the company was orchestrating a campaign to destroy his reputation."
Two years ago, his work on Atrazine provided the scientific basis for two class-action lawsuits brought against Syngenta by 23 US municipalities, accusing the chemical technology company of contaminating drinking water and "concealing Atrazine's true dangerous nature." Documents unearthed during these legal proceedings revealed that Hayes' suspicions were true—Syngenta had indeed been studying him as deeply as he'd been studying their toxic herbicide for the past 15 years.
What follows reaches a level of creepy that no one should ever have to endure—least of all a scientist who's working to learn and share the truth about a widely used agricultural chemical that has the power to affect all of us, and our ecology. Aviv writes:
"Syngenta's public-relations team had drafted a list of four goals. The first was 'discredit Hayes.' In a spiral-bound notebook, Syngenta's communications manager, Sherry Ford, who referred to Hayes by his initials, wrote that the company could 'prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible...' Syngenta looked for ways to 'exploit Hayes' faults/problems.' 'If TH involved in scandal, enviros will drop him,' Ford wrote. She observed that Hayes 'grew up in world (S.C.) that wouldn't accept him,' 'needs adulation,' 'doesn't sleep,' was 'scarred for life.' She wrote, 'What's motivating Hayes?—basic question.'"

Who Will You Listen to: Big Money, or a Researcher Working Next to Free?

Indeed, what could possibly motivate anyone to undertake work that is bound to alienate them from their peers, smear their personal and professional reputation, and perhaps even ruin their financial future? In Dr. Carman's case, it was a passion for the truth. And a deep concern for her fellow man—your children and unborn grandchildren included. She is a magnificent role model for all of us as she sacrificed her income and endured professional abuse for the sake of the truth.
She was savvy enough to understand the risks of such an undertaking. She knew that people in this field tend to be fired from their jobs once they publish negative findings. Publicly shamed and out of work, many of these scientists are prevented from doing any further research. To circumvent this possibility, Dr. Carman took some proactive steps to ensure that backlash wouldn't force her to discontinue her work.
"Early on, it became obvious that there was really no money. You couldn't go to a funding organization and ask for money to be able to do research in this area. I was concerned about the possibility of bad health effects occurring in people. I decided that I needed to go looking. I needed to do some proper animal studies to see if there were any adverse effects occurring in animals that might translate into people.
I realized I needed to leave paid employment to be able to do it. I'm actually unfunded in this work. At the age of 45, I had enough investment income to be able to do work on this area basically for free, and on very little money. I've been poor now for quite a few years. But it became imperative for me to look; I had a burning question about whether it was safe for people to eat GMO's or not...
Most people would probably choose to look after their families [rather] than to continue on with the research. Not only is it very hard to get money to be able to do the research, but you have to be able to survive the abuse you get afterwards, and the threats to your livelihood afterwards. In fact, a lot of people who work in this area are people who are retired from paid employment, because once again, they can't be threatened with losing their livelihood."

Follow the Money...

Ever since the introduction of genetically engineered seeds about 20 years ago, the market for these chemical-dependent crops have spawned a multibillion dollar industry. Funding for the development of more varieties of GE crop varieties has come primarily from the privately-owned pesticide industry itself.  Over the last 15 years, conflicts of interest within science have exponentially increased, and at this point, it's blatantly obvious that financial conflicts of interest play a major role when it comes to what research is done; what gets published, and what doesn't.
Virtually all of the research done on GMOs is performed by the industry itself or scientists funded by them either directly or indirectly through grants to the agricultural universities. The results, therefore, are predictable. Few are those who have both the right qualifications and the willingness to "bear the cross," as it were, that seems to come standard when you're investigating GMOs as an independent researcher.
My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Carman for her personal sacrifices to get this all-important work done. Without such research, we'd remain clueless as to what these foods might be doing to us in the long term. With it, we can make far more educated guesses about the real ramifications of this massive, unannounced human experiment, and decide for ourselves if we really want to partake in it or not. My recommendation? Avoid it, as best as you can.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State–to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference. By boycotting GMA member Traitor Brands, you can help level the playing field, and help take back control of our food supply.
I-522 poster
I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Acorns, Materia Medica, Herbal Information

Herbal Health:  Specific information on herbs and their traditional information of use.  This is a new series we are starting on this site.  The information contained on each post now and in the future are not meant for medical diagnosis or treatment.  It is only being given as information based on research others have co
English: A group of acorns.
English: A group of acorns. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
nducted and culminated into one area here for your entertainment.

ACORNS:   Querus Species

Part Used:  Shelled Nuts
Properties:  Tonic, Astringent, Demulcent
Biochemical:  Albumin, Sugar, Flavonoids, Tannins

History:  Used extensively in wasting diseases, mainly tuberculosis in the 19th and early 20th century.  A staple food of American Indians.    Considered a good source food for controlling diarrhea because of it's high astringent properties.

Preparation:  Once the nuts are shelled, mashed into a fine meal and then washed in a cloth for several hours with cold water to rid the meal of excessive tannins.

Still used in various parts of the world as a staple food however it has lost favor in the US for reasons of convenience and expense.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester, VA BoS Member, Chris Huston, Violating State Code? Conflict of Interests?

On Tuesday night, May 20, 2014Gloucester County, Virginia Supervisor Christopher A. “Chris” Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer project.  Part of the project entails installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it.
The following information was obtained from the Gloucester County website and is for property on Laurel drive that is owned by the parents of Hope Hutson.  Hope Hutson is the wife of Gloucester Supervisor Christopher Hutson and the property is where Mrs. Hutson grew up. 
Mr. Hutson should have abstained from voting on anything to do with the Terrapin Cove sewer project from our view.
General Property Information:
Owner Information:
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
RPC #: 32740
Property Information:
Legal Description: RIVERDALE SUBD SEC C
Total Land Area: 0.383
Physical Location:
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
Building 1  $129,400.00   
Other Improvements:  $13,800.00   
Land Value:  $53,000.00   
Total Value:  $196,200.00

Our Notes:  How many other board members were aware that Mr Hutson has personal interests in this area?  Did Mr Hutson ask certain other BoS members for favors to get the above passed in his favor?  What must Mr Huston vote on that he might be against in the future that he will be forced to change his vote on in order to return any favors?  Is this one of the tests that we talked about yesterday on why certain people are in public service?  Did Mr Hutson just show us that he is in Public Service for his own personal interests and personal gain?  We actually have more information on that that helps to answer this question and some big surprises are coming up about Mr Hutson's background.

  In the mean time, we recommend that the BoS consult an outside source competent attorney that can explain to them the meanings of conflict of interest.  Ted seems to have a history that would suggest he just covers those up.

Gloucester, VA, A Thank You To 3 BoS Members

I sent the following email thank you note to the Board of Supervisors after four of them voted to spend over $500,000 dollars to unnecessarily extend public sewer into an existing neighborhood at Gloucester Point. I can hardly wait until the next election season. 
I and many others say “thank you” to Mr. Myer, Mr. Winebarger and Mr. Bazzani for voting against proceeding with the Terrapin Cove sewer project.  Unfortunately for the majority of the County, the project is moving forward.
Spending that amount of money without proven justification of the need is not demonstrating good stewardship of the citizen’s money.  There were no condemnation orders and no warnings from any regulatory agencies.  There were no reports indicating sewer infiltration into the adjacent waterways. There were no inspection reports indicating unsuitable soils.  There were no reports of sewer water rising out of the ground.  The monitoring wells placed by public works were not secured to prevent tampering and soil was not properly mounded around the wells to prevent runoff infiltration.  The same results will be achieved throughout the majority of Guinea and in many other areas without sewer if such a test were done.  No swimming pools in the neighborhood have floated out of the ground including on Berkley Court.  Numerous owners on Berkley Court have allowed their drain fields to be overgrown with trees, shrubs and the likes.  Now the majority of the citizens in Gloucester will pay because those property owners failed to maintain their systems.  It is very likely that the majority of the homes associated with the project will not connect and no commitment from the associated homeowners was obtained before deciding to have the majority of citizens pay for the convenience of a hand full.
I will refrain from listing what could have been accomplished with that amount of money, but only until the next election season.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 8)

Battle of the Hook, 2013
Battle of the Hook, 2013 (Photo credit: Battleofthehook)
By Thomas James Norton

It might be argued that, under the coefficient or Sweeping Clause of the Constitution, quoted in the preceding chapter, as applied by the Supreme Court respecting a banking corporation for the needs of the Government, Congress could create a corporation deemed "necessary and proper" to aid its lawful activity in the control of floods of an interstate river and the promotion of navigation thereon.
But it certainly has no authority to create a corporation for the manufacture and sale of electric power in competition with private industry.
Making electric power not for United States Government
That was conceded by counsel for the United States before the Supreme Court in the case to be examined, and was pointed out by Chief Justice Hughes.

However, the Tennessee Valley Authority is manufacturing and selling electric power in large volume, and many persons and newspapers passing as among the thinking classes are charmed with the results.
Of course, the schools, colleges, and universities left those classes without understanding of what is more important than any valley made lovely with other people's money, namely, that "departure from the lines there laid down," as President Cleveland said of the Constitution, "is failure."
People easily misled by easy getting
Thus, what seems to some a great success in the development of a valley may be in reality a failure in government, tending to destroy free enterprise, property rights, and the liberty which the Constitution was designed to protect and promote.
There has been great rejoicing in the Northwest also and among Socialists throughout the country over the construction by the Government of the Bonneville and the Grand Coulee dams in the Columbia River, about 400 miles apart. But the question raised regarding the achievements in the Tennessee Valley presents itself as to those projects: can "departure from the lines" laid down in the Constitution be compensated for by all such developments imaginable?
As valleys from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the wide plains between, have been developed without breach of the Constitution, why should disregard of the limitations which it prescribes be advocated and practiced now? In the development of the United States, unprecedented in the activities of men, prosperity in each valley and each

region has been achieved by the brains, labor, and money of the dwellers. The residents of no area have thought of asking the people of the rest of the country to provide the money for bringing development to their locality!
Development of valleys not function of Government
Neither did the people of the Tennessee Valley ask for this project. The idea originated in the minds of Socialists, Fascists, and political adventurers far away. The idea was not so much to develop this particular valley, industrially, as it was to "grab off" this promising location as a means of demonstrating in the United States the beauty and utility of an alien belief at variance with our constitutional system. And, as before said, many who should know better think the demonstration has been a charmer.
It is the money of the people in all the States that paid for and is continuing to support "the wonderful works" in Tennessee. The doings are unfair as well as unconstitutional.
The propagandizing activity of the Tennessee Valley Authority in carrying the beauties of this Socialism and Fascism to the public has been so persistent (and expensive) as to draw criticism in Congress. It has had its effect on many.
Did General Eisenhower speak of power projects of T.V.A.?
It may be that those unconstitutional power projects were in the mind of General Dwight D. Eisenhower when, as President of Columbia University, he spoke on Febru-

ary 10, 1949, to a group of students about "a creeping paralysis of thought" which leads to dictatorship. Addressing 130 leaders of students in preparatory and high schools, the General, who had opportunity to learn all about the way things go in Washington, said:
"There is a kind of dictatorship which can come about through a creeping paralysis of thought, readiness to accept paternalistic measures of Government, and along with those paternalistic measures coming a surrender of our own responsibilities and, therefore, a surrender of our own thought over our own lives and our own right to exercise our vote indicating the policies of our country."
Revelations respecting extraordinary growth of bureaus
General Eisenhower may have had in mind too the report of the Committee on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, headed by former President Hoover, that "billions -- not millions -- but billions" could be saved by reshaping and reducing the 1,800 bureaus running at large and employing 2,200,000 civilian workers, increased from 580,000 twenty years ago. The pay of those employees increased from $1,000,000,000 to $6,500,000,000 a year. They, with the voting members of their families, can control the election of the President.
On May 13, 1933, Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority as a body corporate "for the purpose of maintaining and operating the properties now owned by the United States in the vicinity of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in the interest of national defense and for agricultural and industrial development, and to improve navigation in the Tennessee River and to control the destructive

flood waters in the Tennessee River and Mississippi River Basins."
Agricultural and industrial development by Congress not authorized
What clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress to concern itself with "agricultural and industrial development"? None. That part of the Act is lawless.
By implication, the Commerce Clause empowers Congress "to improve navigation" of waters carrying interstate commerce and to control "destructive floods" in such streams.
But it receives from the Constitution no authority respecting "agricultural and industrial development." Then, why were those words employed by the nonelected persons who drafted the Act? Were they ignorant of the Constitution, or contemptuous of it?
"The properties now owned by the United States in the vicinity of Muscle Shoals" referred to the Wilson Dam, which was begun in 1917 and completed in 1926 under authority of the National Defense Act of June 31, 1916, which empowered the President to have investigation made as to "the best, cheapest and most available means for the production of nitrates and other products for munitions of war." That provided also for the designation of exclusive sites upon navigable or nonnavigable rivers or the public lands for carrying out the purposes of the Act; and it authorized the President "to construct, maintain, and operate" on any such sites "dams, locks, improvements to navigation, power houses and other plants and equipment ... for the generation of electrical or other power and for the production of nitrates or other products

needed for munitions of war and useful in the manufacture of fertilizers and other useful products." (The foregoing italics are inserted.)
The National Defense Act of 1916 was passed in expectation of the war which we declared on Germany ten months later.
But why did the draftsmen of that act bring in with "munitions" of war "the manufacture of fertilizers and other useful products"?
Fascist corporation planned before election of 1932
That the Act creating the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is long enough to fill ten columns of a newspaper, and which is of almost infinite and very difficult detail, could have been put through Congress two months after inauguration, means that it had been worked out long before the election of November, 1932. It had been kept in the dark from the writers of the platform and it never was revealed from the stump to the people. Alien-minded persons outside Government had probably prepared the Fascist creature for the incoming group.
In 1946 the Tennessee Valley Authority, besides producing electric power, was engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements, of fertilizer for agriculture, and of the instruments of sanitation. It was engaged in mineral development, in providing means of recreation, in the care and promotion of wild life, in demonstrations, in farm management assistance, and in many other activities. On these, it lost for the year the money of the taxpayers to the amount of $3,600,000.

Heavy losses to taxpayers maintaining T.V.A.
Its losses on the manufacture of power and all other activities amount to $8,041,000 for the year 1946. From its beginning in 1934 it has cost the taxpayers almost $100,000,000. These figures are from an analysis of the financial statements of the corporation by the Edison Electric Institute -- a trade association representing about 75 per cent of the private electric light and power industry.
An analysis of the records of Tennessee Valley Authority for the United States Chamber of Commerce was made by C. J. Green, formerly accountant for the Federal Power Commission, and given to the Press in October, 1948. He found that from May, 1933, to June, 1946, funds of the Treasury -- of the taxpayers -- invested in all Tennessee Valley Authority activities totaled $742,386,524. From that he subtracted $74,525,261 in Treasury investments not connected with river power, and added $44,394,436 for power investments "omitted" by Tennessee Valley Authority in its accounting system, arriving at a net power investment of public funds of $712,255,699.
T.V.A. has advantages over private investors
He found that if Tennessee Valley Authority had paid taxes on the basis on which private power companies paid, it would have returned to governments $155,237,363 for their support.
Had Tennessee Valley Authority been obliged to pay interest on the funds which the Treasury provided from the pockets of the taxpayers, the money would have cost it $78,309,109.

How can private investors in electric power companies compete with a set-up like that?
And yet many commentators and propagandists have severely condemned the "selfish" and "anti-social" spirit of private investors who have complained of and offered opposition to such competition from the corporations of Fascism! Thus, we have almost reached in our Republic the equivalent of lese majesty. It may be with us tomorrow.
Congress apparently tiring of no returns
The Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives has proposed that the Tennessee Valley Authority be required to repay within forty years the funds of the Treasury establishing and enlarging it.
But how can that be done unless the Authority has income? And how can it derive income from dams and reservoirs merely controlling floods?
"Flood control" is the disguise in which the Fascists wrapped themselves when they "put across" within two months after inauguration in 1933 a complicated bill of more than 10,000 words which must have been in preparation long before the election in November. The constitutional enemy from Europe was waiting to come in.
President Roosevelt's argumentation for Fascism
When the Government's entry into this business was under discussion, President Roosevelt argued that it was necessary to provide a "yardstick" for the prices which the

manufacturers of electricity should charge the public, the contention being that those prices were then out of all reason.
Still, if that were true -- and it was not, for the States had power to prescribe and regulate rates and were doing so -- that was none of the business of the United States.
As private power companies pay Federal, State, and local taxes, it was determined that the Authority (probably to appear "fair") should not be entirely tax free, so it and its distributors contributed as a donative about 4.5 per cent of their combined gross power income to State and local treasuries. The Georgia Power, a competitor, contributed 5.5 per cent of its gross intake to State and local taxes.
Private investors support government
But the Authority paid (1946) no Federal taxes, while the Georgia Power paid 17.5 per cent of its gross to the United States. To Federal, State, and local taxation combined, the private owner thus paid 23 per cent of its gross income, while the Authority paid 4.5 per cent of the gross of itself and its distributors.
That is a mathematical demonstration of the purpose of the Government of the United States to drive private power companies out of business and become to that extent a corporative state of Fascism. In a dissenting opinion in the case arising out of this Tennessee Valley activity on the part of the native aliens in Washington, Justice McReynolds showed from the record that the purpose was to drive private investors out.

Competition by government destructive to private investors
And in March, 1947, a press dispatch from Boston said that the President of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company recommended the sale of the properties of the company "to public power agencies, the Grand Coulee Dam, the Bonneville Dam, and others, as the only way to protect the stockholders' interest." In a speech at a meeting of stockholders he "charged unfair competition from government-owned utilities" which "makes it impossible for public and private power distributors to operate side by side." A power company of the Government would, he said, "escape about $2,600,000 annually in Federal taxes and 1 million in State and local taxes paid by this company." He said, further, that "Government-subsidized competition has cut rates and earnings to the point where the company cannot expect to attract private investment capital."
All that sort of advantage to the monopoly of Government was shown of record in the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which case (297 U. S. 288) arose out of the attempt of the common stockholders of a private power company to sell part of its property to the Tennessee Valley Authority in order to save themselves from a competition which they knew would finish them. The preferred stockholders resisted, and lost in the Supreme Court.

The President's "yardstick" becomes a bludgeon
The Federal power companies are using as a bludgeon the "yardstick" of which President Roosevelt talked so much as a means of doing "justice." The Tenth Amendment forbids the United States to interfere thus in the field of local law. And, precedent to that, the Constitution forbids -- by not authorizing -- Congress to create a corporation for manufacturing and selling electric power, or doing any other business.
In the dissenting opinion in the case now to be examined, Justice McReynolds stated the purpose of the Socialists and Fascists who had "put over" the Tennessee Valley Authority:
"Public service corporations were to be brought to terms or put out of business."
It is manifest from the foregoing figures that they could not compete with a corporation which pays comparatively no taxes, and which operates on taxpayers' money, for which it pays no interest yearly. The Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1945 shows that the United States (taxpayers) pays that interest for the money which it furnishes to the Authority.
When competing private power companies borrow money, they must pay interest at current rates, as they pay full taxes.
T.V.A. for power, not flood control

The analysis by the Edison Electric Institute of the reports of the Tennessee Valley Authority for 1946 shows these expenses for production:


for Electric Power $6,198,023
for Navigation $2,309,548
for Flood Control $2,020,740
Those figures show that this corporation was created chiefly to manufacture and sell electric power. The pretense that it was primarily to control floods and develop navigation in an interstate river was pretense only.
On January 4, 1934, the Tennessee Valley Authority entered into an agreement with the Alabama Power Company for the purchase at more than $1,000,000 of some of its transmission lines and substations, for the purchase of some of its real estate, for the sale to the Power Company of "surplus power" of the Authority, and for (what used to be reprehensible) the division of territory between them.
Stockholders resisted entry of T.V.A.
Holders of preferred stock in the Alabama Power Company, believing the contract to be injurious to the company and also invalid, because beyond the power of the Federal Government, brought suit to have the performance of the contract enjoined, and thus save their property.
The United States District Court which heard the case granted an injunction on the ground that Congress had no constitutional power to engage in a permanent utility system.
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. On appeal by the stockholders to the Supreme Court of the United States the latter decision was affirmed (297 U. S. 288) on February 17, 1936, Justice McReynolds writing a vigorous dissent.

Very pertinent to the holding of the trial court that the action of Congress was unconstitutional is this language of the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Hughes:
"And the Government rightly conceded at the bar, in substance, that it was without constitutional authority to acquire or dispose of such energy except as it comes into being in the operation of works constructed in the exercise of some power delegated to the United States."
Case against T.V.A. perfectly clear
That is, it could not, independently of flood control or improvement of navigation in the interstate river, use the dam and the machinery connected with it for the sole purpose of manufacturing electric power for sale. In the control of floods and in improving navigation, the machinery might generate more power than was needed for the purposes stated. It would be unreasonable to let that go to waste. It could be legally sold, as the general purpose of the operations was not to manufacture power for commercial sale.
But the act of 1916, the beginning of the Wilson Dam, contemplated not only the manufacture of nitrates for war, a constitutional activity, but also the production of things "useful in the manufacture of fertilizers and other useful products," an unconstitutional activity. And the act of 1933, creating the Authority to take over the Wilson Dam, said that it was for "national defense," a constitutional activity, and also "for agricultural and industrial development," an unconstitutional activity.
The Supreme Court viewed the case through a narrow

slit and treated it as though it stood alone, whereas the record, as exhibited by Justice McReynolds, quoting from the pronouncements of the promoters, showed "no less a goal than the electrification of America," Since then the "goal" has been considerably attained.
In a dissenting opinion Justice McReynolds said that on the record the Court should have considered the truth of petitioner's charge that, while pretending to act within its powers to improve navigation, the United States, through corporate agencies, was really seeking to accomplish what it had no right to undertake -- "the business of developing, distributing and selling electric power."
Justice McReynolds saw through the fraud
Justice McReynolds said, "Public service corporations were to be brought to terms or put out of business."
The Justice quoted from the report of the Authority for 1934:
"When we carry this program into every town and city and village, and every farm throughout the country, we will have written the greatest chapter in the economic, industrial, and social development of America."
That made plain how little were flood control and navigation involved in the adventure. Of course, that development was not the business of the United States, any more than the development of the country in the past has been.
On the findings of fact made by the trial court, which Justice McReynolds said were not controverted, he called the act of the Government "a deliberate step into a forbidden field, taken with definite purpose to continue the trespass."

President Roosevelt later confirmed view of Justice McReynolds
Precisely what Justice McReynolds stated of the purpose to continue a trespass in a forbidden field was admitted by President Roosevelt in a Press conference on November 14, 1944, shortly after he had been elected for the fourth time. This came in the dispatches from Washington (italics inserted):
"Of his seven water shed developments, Mr. Roosevelt said that the areas would center about a basic stream for each district. Water control would be a minor phase of activity compared to power development."
The need for secrecy and deception having passed, seemingly, the President let the cat out of the bag.
But there had been no cat in a bag except to the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court.[1]
And on May 11, 1948, the House of Representatives of the 80th Congress killed by a vote of 192 to 152 a bill of the bureau for the construction of a steampower plant in the Tennessee Valley to cost ultimately 84 million dollars.
1. An advertisement by the Electric Light and Power Companies in United States News and World Report of March 3, 1950, shows a map of the United States in which are stuck 209 pins with white heads and 491 with black heads, over 44 of the 48 States. The white heads show where electric power plants are now operated or financed by the Federal Government, and the black pins mark the places where electric plants are under construction with taxpayers' money. The map presents a frightening picture. It goes to prove what Justice McReynolds said the record in this case established, that the Fascists had "no less a goal than the electrification of America." The United States is becoming Socialistic at top speed.

Flood control and navigation superseded by steam
Those facts go even further than President Roosevelt did when he admitted that the whole scheme was from the beginning for the manufacture of power by Fascist corporations aided by the money of the taxpayers. Of course, a steam plant manufacturing electric power is absolutely unrelated to flood control and the promotion of interstate navigation.
And the Supreme Court, notwithstanding what Justice McReynolds disclosed from the record, permitted itself to be taken in by the fraudulent pretenses of the promoters of Fascism!
In addition to that stupendous nongovernmental project, which has cost the taxpayers heavily every year -- $41,839,062 in 1939, for instance -- there are the Grand Coulee Dam Project of August 30, 1935, the Bonneville Project of August 20, 1937, on the Columbia River; the Fort Peck Project of May 18,1938, on the Missouri River, and numerous other projects covering the map -- all illegal power projects.
We were suffering from what General Eisenhower called "creeping paralysis" when those projects were pushed through!
Flood control fraudulent pretense of Fascism
The Federal Power Act of August 26, 1935, for the acquisition of power sites, plainly evidenced a comprehensive purpose of Government to manufacture and sell electric power, through Fascist corporations and with the money of the taxpayers, in competition with private inves-

tors and manufacturers and in violation of the Constitution.
The record raising the question whether the Government of the United States was bent on controlling floods in navigable rivers and promoting navigation in them, or whether it was in reality on an adventure in Socialism should have given pause to the Supreme Court.
Question should not have been decided by the Supreme Court
The question was for the Ultimate Court. It was for the Constituent Assembly, the people acting in their capacity as constitution makers, to say whether that business, stopped by the sound injunctive order of the United States District Court, should go further. It was the right of the people, passing on a proposal to amend the Constitution, to say whether they wanted their Government in the business of manufacturing and selling electric power, or in any other business. The departure from the law respecting the carrying on of business since the time of Magna Carta, 721 years before, was so radical that it was the duty of the Judiciary to stop it, as the trial court did, until the question could be carried to the people for decision.
That is what the court of Chief Justice Fuller did in 1895 with an income-tax law in disregard of a limitation stated in the Constitution. It told the proponents of the income-tax idea to take it to the people, as the Court would not try to rewrite the Fundamental Law.

In later case Chief Justice stated principle correctly
And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
It is lamentable that that principle was not applied by the Supreme Court respecting the Tennessee Valley Authority. For the time must come when the people will refuse to submit to taxation for money to be used in such ways. And it is fully as important that the tremendous and malign influences of such bureaus in the Government as propagandists be brought to an end.
With such forces pouring out "information" to the public all the time in torrents, it is, of course, impossible for the public to be rightly informed.
T.V.A. persistent danger to public opinion
The Tennessee Valley Authority has been a powerful and dangerous propagandist. The United States Government Printing Office put out "Progress in the Valley: T V A, 1947" -- an 82-page book printed on heavy paper, with 7 costly pictures of the wonders accomplished for man, woman, and child in the Valley, and for invention, manufacture, and recreation.

On page 74 the book says that the average rate paid by "large industrial consumers" during the past year was 0.64 cents per kilowatt hour, in comparison with "0.93 paid by industrial consumers throughout the United States."
First, why should "large industrial consumers" be cared for by the American taxpayers?
Promptly upon the turning of machinery by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Aluminum Company of America and the Monsanto Chemical Company, two of the largest manufacturers in the country, went down from the North and began business in the Valley under long-time contracts for cheap power at the cost of the taxpayers! They recognized a golden "yardstick" when it appeared.[2]
2. A dispatch from Washington on April 5, 1949, showed that "big business" has taken over heavily the benefits of the cheap power provided by the taxpayers. In the Tennessee Valley are the Aluminum Company of America, the Monsanto Chemical Company, the Reynolds Metals Company, the Electro Metallurgical Company, the Victor Chemical Company, the Tennessee Copper Company, and the Reynolds Alloys, taking over 28 per cent of the total output.
In the Northwest the power generated at the Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams on the Columbia River by the taxpayers was taken by the Aluminum Company of America, the Pemamente Metals Corporation, the Reynolds Company, the Electro Metallurgical Co., the Pacific Carbide Company, and the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, among others.
The "yardstick" which the President was so desirous of providing to show what rates to the consumer should be charged was evidently of the highest satisfaction to large corporations. Now the complaint at Washington is that the consumers in the homes and other small users are threatened with a shortage unless Congress will authorize the construction of steam plants -- thus casting off altogether the cloak of navigation and flood control which Congress wore when it entered on this stage!

Mathematics proves private capital cannot meet taxpayers' money
Second, it is manifest that a rate by Government of 0.64 must drive out of business companies charging 0.93. Justice McReynolds found that to be the grand purpose.
On page 79 the book reveals that through the fiscal year 1945 the Authority purchased "facilities totaling $125,000,000." Those acquisitions brought in "some 345,000 consumers, or about half of those now served."
If that is not swallowing competitors alive, what expression would describe it?
The Supreme Court held that as the Constitution provides (Art. IV, Sec. 3) that "the Congress shall have power to dispose of ... the territory or other property belonging to the United States," it could convert the water of the River into power and sell it as it disposes of coal or other minerals in the lands which it owns. But it does not own the water in the river. Besides, it sells from the public lands the coal or other mineral in its natural state. It does not, in competition with other manufacturers, convert potential into actual power. On that, Justice McReynolds said that the ownership of an iron mine by the United States would not "permit the construction of smelting works followed by entry into the business of manufacturing and selling hardware, albeit the ore could be thus disposed of, private dealers discomfited, and artificial prices publicized."
A great prophetic lawyer foresaw these cases
This decision upholding the Act of Congress creating the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the decision sustain-

ing the National Labor Relations Act, and the decision sanctioning the Packers and Stockyards Act, bring to mind a passage from one of the lectures fifty years ago to the law students at Yale by John F. Dillon, who had sat on the Supreme Court of Iowa and on a Federal Bench, a great figure of that day. Dealing with the barriers set in the Constitution to keep Congress in its place -- to keep it out of "a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definition" -- with the barriers to keep a vaulting Chief Executive in his place, that great constitutionalist said:
"The value, however, of these constitutional guarantees wholly depends upon whether they are fairly interpreted, and justly and with even hand fully and fearlessly enforced by the courts. . . .
"If there is any problem which can be said to be yet unsettled, it is whether the Bench of this country, State and Federal, is able to bear the burden of supporting under all circumstances the Fundamental Law against popular, or supposed popular, demands for enactments in conflict with it."
The Judiciary, respecting which Judge Dillon had misgivings half a century ago, has certainly not grown stronger.
Whence authority to destroy productive land?
What overpowering necessity called for the drowning of 500,000 acres of cultivated land which the Farm Bureau of Tennessee found in 1941 to be producing each year crops valued at $14,415,300? Could the furnishing of cheap electric power by the President's new "yardstick" to powerful patrons of the Tennessee Valley Authority justify the de-

struction of this natural value of the Earth? When the Salt River Valley had recently been reclaimed by irrigation from the desert and made immensely fertile and productive, and when other reclamation projects had been carried out and more were in prospect, by what line of reasoning could any "planner" have concluded that it was desirable to submerge forever more than half a million acres of the rich bottom lands along the Tennessee River?
But that destruction of fertile lands displaced 13,433 families, or 56,000 persons, and sent them adrift, as the war in Europe displaced persons and sent them wandering. For those in Europe we have expressed much compassion and to them we have given much help; but there has been no sorrowing over the displaced persons in the Tennessee Valley. True, those who were displaced in that Valley were paid for their lands, so far as money can compensate for the loss of homes sanctified by long living and clustered with the memories of generations.
Irreplaceable loss of production from land
Yet, even if the compensation had been sufficient to cover every element of value entering into the worth of a long-established home, there still remained, and will forever remain, unpaid for, the yearly production of $14,415,300 of foodstuffs and other products given by the land and needed and consumed by the American people. And even if the displaced persons found employment in the electric power plants which the Government set up without authority from the Constitution, who on earth had authority to determine that it was better for those persons to exchange the independence and security of life on their lands for the uncertainty of subsistence from a pay roll

which is liable to be suspended at any time without any explanation to them?
Fascism thrust upon Tennessee Valley
As previously indicated, the people of the Tennessee Valley did not ask for the submergence of their lands.
Those adventures by means of Fascist corporations are probably the worst aggressions by Congress and the President upon the liberty and the property rights of the Americans.

All who have become enthusiastic over the "success" of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and of the other projects of Government for manufacturing electric power for the commercial market by using the money of the taxpayers without asking their permission, should think again and carefully consider the warning given centuries ago by Authority, namely, that men may gain the whole world and still be heavy losers.

Thanks to the folks over at Barefoot's world.

Enhanced by Zemanta