RE: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

From: Mike B.
Sent on: Monday, October 15, 2012 5:12 PM
At 03:19 PM 10/15/2012, you wrote:
>Before there was labeling about peanuts people 
>with the alergies had to inquire personally to 
>find out if any peanut products are present in 
>the product they are going to buy.

Of course no company wants anyone to drop dead 
from their product and they most likely would 
label their products voluntarily for that purpose 
or loose business to those who do. As for the 
compliance cost you don't know what that will be 
for the businesses. However there will also be 
cost involved in lost business to competitors 
simply because of labeling. Next will be GMO are 
hazardous to your health labels.

As far as the crib examples it is not the new law 
that brought greater safety, the accident spurred 
that. The products don't become safer because 
government makes it so, it is because the 
manufacture is held liable when their product causes harm.

Government is not a patron.

Mike


>
>
>Bink-<?xml:na­mespace prefix = o ns = 
>"urn:schemas-mic­rosoft-com:office:of­fice" />
>
>You are correct. Strictly speaking it is not 
>moral, and it is the antithesis of liberty, for 
>government to affirmatively require anyone to do 
>anything. However, the unthinking and mechanical 
>application of this principle has unintended 
>consequences that are not acceptable. For 
>example, some people have deadly allergies to 
>peanuts. Requiring the manufacturers of 
>processed foods simply ADD to their EXISTING 
>label the fact that their product contains 
>peanuts the next time they change their label 
>(something that is done, on average, every 17 
>months) is something that is not a burden. In 
>fact, I would think that most manufacturers 
>would be happy to do this. After all, who wants 
>people to be dropping dead from eating their product.
>
>The problem is that in a free society, everyone 
>has a duty to reasonably avoid doing things that 
>are harmful to others. However, some will 
>nevertheless commit crimes like theft and 
>murder. Thus, we have laws to prohibit things 
>that infringe on the lives and property of 
>others and punish those who violate these laws.
>
>In the case of genetically modified foods, there 
>is a good deal of evidence suggesting that they 
>are harmful to the health of people. They may 
>cause cancer and, when eaten over several 
>generations, they may cause infertility in the 
>third generation. The strict application of 
>libertarian principles would prohibit any 
>labeling or prohibition of these products until 
>they are proven to be harmful. However, the cost 
>for this strict application is many cancer 
>deaths and infertility in future generations. On 
>the other hand, the cost of adding to the label 
>of these product the information that they 
>contain genetically modified ingredients is, if anything at all, nominal.
>
>In the absence of proof positive that these GMOs 
>are harmful, nobody is suggesting that they be 
>banned. However, requiring manufacturers to 
>provide us with this information is more than 
>reasonable considering the risk we must incur by 
>eating them. We should be free to choose whether 
>or not to take this risk or purchase other 
>non-GMO foods. Without the information, we do not have a choice.
>
>Currently, there isn’t any FDA requirement for 
>proof that GMO foods are safe. Therefore, if we 
>accept the libertarian principle which would not 
>allow us to infringe on the liberty of the 
>manufacturer by requiring disclosure of GMO 
>information, and we subsequently contract cancer 
>and can absolutely prove the cancer was caused 
>by these foods, we would not be able to 
>successfully sue the manufacturer because they 
>had not been doing anything that was prohibited 
>by law. But, even if we could successfully sue 
>them, if would be a cold comfort when we were dying or dead from cancer.
>
>The fact is that the reason manufacturers are 
>opposed to including disclosure of GMO 
>ingredients in their foods is that they 
>anticipate a drop in their sales! The main 
>producer of these ingredients is Monsanto and 
>they anticipate the loss of millions in sales. 
>They don’t give a damn that their products may cause cancer and infertility.
>
>For anyone who opposes a labeling requirement 
>because it infringes on the liberty of the 
>manufacturer, I ask you to consider the impact 
>on the liberty of someone who dies from cancer 
>by eating GMO foods. Moreover, in a free 
>society, I suggest that manufacturers have a 
>duty do disclose information about what is in 
>their products. Failing to do so infringes on 
>the liberty of consumers to make informed decisions.
>
>How about this; Safety specifications for the manufacturer of baby cribs.
>
>Infants have died due to strangulation caused by 
>the design of cribs. These specifications are 
>certainly an infringement on the liberty of the 
>manufacturer. A much greater infringement than a labeling requirement.
>
>Should we repeal these regulations?! If your 
>baby is strangled to death as a result of his or 
>her crib’s design, you can sue the 
>manufacturer. Is this your preferred solution to 
>the problem of unsafe cribs. And, please don’t 
>tell me that, without regulations, some 
>companies will make safe cribs and people can 
>choose to buy those. If allowed, there will 
>always be cheap and dangerous cribs manufactured 
>in third world countries that will be purchased 
>by people with limited means who are ignorant of the danger.
>
>All I can say is that libertarianism is great 
>but, like anything else, you have to use some common sense!!!
>
>With cigarettes, millions of people had to die 
>from lung cancer before government required a 
>warning label. Are you opposed to thyese labels 
>too?! Do millions of people have to die before 
>it is justified to require the disclosure of GMO information on the label?
>
>Ken-
>
>
>----------
>From: [address removed]
>To: [address removed]
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>Date: Mon, 15 Oct[masked]:26:04 -0400
>
>Leigh, and all,
>My previous response to you Leigh was, I feel, 
>too much to be dealt with handily, so I will try a different tact.
>Let me ask a simple single question and follow 
>it up with my answer to the same.
>
>What does this statement by Bastiat mean to you?
>
>Thus, as an individual cannot legitimately use 
>force against the person, liberty, or property 
>of another individual, for the same reason 
>collective force cannot legitimately be applied 
>to destroy the person, liberty, and property of 
>individuals or classes. (Page 2, The Law)
>
>My response:
>
>If we can agree that I do not have the right to 
>walk into your personal business (that you own 
>and built at your own expense) as a private 
>citizen and order you to place a label on all 
>your consumable food or drug products (or any 
>type of product) so that I can be assured that 
>they have no ingredients or components that 
>could be harmful to me, can you also agree that 
>you would laugh me out of your presence in 
>amused disgust as a drug induced idiot? Of corse you can.
>
>That being the proposed case, how can we the 
>people think that we can give some bureaucrat 
>this same right that we we do not poses in and 
>of ourselves? How can I give a right to someone 
>else to do something that I do not have the 
>right to do myself? How can I give you food if I 
>am without food. Can I give you my car if I do 
>not own a car, can I give them your car? Morally 
>and justly I cannot. Are we still in agreement?
>
>Do I have a right to not purchase your products 
>because you will not disclose if the product has 
>this or that and therefore the product is safe 
>for me to eat?  Yes, it is my resources to be 
>used for my purchases. If there was a law that 
>made it mandatory for me to purchase and consume 
>your product would that seem lawful and just to you? Certainly not.
>
>The above quoted sentence tells me that I can 
>not delegate to others something that I do not 
>myself poses. It also tells me that others can 
>not legitimately and justly force me to give up 
>my liberty or my property because it is my 
>unalienable right to myself, my liberty and my property.
>
>I think that many of us are approaching this 
>proposition 37 from an emotional response rather 
>than a critical thought process. It is 
>understandable that the emotion of this serious 
>question would pull on our knee jerk response 
>string but it is of great importance that we 
>rise above emotionalism and settle finally for morality and principal.
>
>Unfortunately, the law is by no means confined 
>to its proper role. It is not only in 
>indifferent and debatable matters that it has 
>exceeded its legitimate function. It has done 
>worse; it has acted in a way contrary to its own 
>end; it has destroyed its own object: it has 
>been employed in abolishing the justice which it 
>was supposed to maintain, in effacing that limit 
>between rights which it was its mission to 
>respect; it has put the collective force at the 
>service of those who desire to exploit, without 
>risk and without scruple, the person, liberty, 
>or property of others; it has converted plunder 
>into a right, in order to protect it, and 
>legitimate defense into a crime, in order to punish it. (Bastiat, Page 2)
>Respectfully,
>Bink
>
>
>
>
>On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Leigh Skinner wrote:
>
>Bink,
>
>Adding a word or two to a label is hardly going 
>to raise the price of food unless food 
>manufacturers do it for spite, and if they do, 
>consumers will buy elsewhere.  You have been 
>listening to those damn commercials funded by 
>the $40 million that Monsanto and others have 
>poured into the opposition effort to discredit it.
>
>I am interested in informed consent.  If we are 
>to put up with mandatory labeling, I want a 
>chance of it being as accurate as possible.  And 
>at the very least, it wil be my protest of 
>Monsanto's poisoning our food, including home 
>gardens when the wind blows GMO's into it.  I 
>would thinki Ron Paulers would appreciate voting 
>for something as a protest, as you all write about it all the time.
>
>And again, I notice that no one has explained 
>how this initiative takes away your liberty.
>
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
>From: BINK <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Wed, October 10,[masked]:30:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>I began this thread to explain the fine line 
>between absolute liberty to do any damn thing 
>one wants to do and liberty with responsibility.
>
>  --- Liberty is liberty to do any damn thing 
> you want as long as it dose not infringe on 
> someone else's liberty to do any damn thing 
> they want as long as it does not infringe.....---
>
>The former means each person acts like their 
>wants and desires are more important than the 
>othoer person's, and the latter means we try to 
>find a neutral position between the conflicting desires.
>
>   --- moral compromise? This should be a 
> personal act not a governments act. ---
>
>For instance, while I don't have the right to 
>stop someone from smoking, a smoker doesn't have 
>the right to foul the air near me, either.  When 
>we're both outside, its everyone for 
>himself.  So the no-smoking laws came in to 
>relieve those in restaurants and bars from 
>having to breath in smoke in order to patronize 
>the establishment.  So the smoker was relegated 
>to the sidewalk outside and the non-smoker could 
>enjoy the inside.  That is the free will result 
>of ones decision to begin smoking in the first 
>place.  They don't have extra rights to foul the 
>air around them with impunity.
>
>Prop 37 doesn't even involve all the layers of 
>the smoking issue.  It doesn't deny anyone the 
>right to consume GMO laden food, even in the 
>same room with me.  It simply informs the 
>consumer.  At the point of a gun. Personally I 
>don't expect the government will enforce this 
>initiative, and in fact I suspect they'll do 
>whatever they can think of to interfere with 
>it.  Pipe dream, what in the hell are you 
>smoking. Having real, healthy, and unadulterated 
>food has been the law for generations until the 
>government starting adding their own spin into 
>the mix with "regulations" that allowed poison into our food and water.
>   ---What law is that?---
>Would I rather we had voluntary labeling...yes I would.
>  ---We do, Buy food labeled "non GMO, verified 
> by 
> <http://nongmoproj...­" 
> <http://efoodsdire...­ and 
> many others because this is how free markets 
> work. Someone saw a niche in the market place 
> and filled it. They employ Americans with non 
> government jobs while offering a very important 
> need. By all means inform and educate your 
> family and neighbors about Monsanto's plans of 
> stealing the food and agricultural market by 
> way of genetically manipulating the food chain. 
> Write the food makers to stop using GMO because 
> you will no longer buy there products until 
> they do. I know, it's a painfully slow way to 
> get anything done especially when all you have 
> to do is climb in bed with the slave master, 
> but it is the moral and right way.---
>
>But still truth in labeling would be needed for 
>those who chose to label.  And buyer beware for those who didn't.
>
>This initiative  doesn't restrict a minority or 
>take away any ones rights as someone suggested 
>earlier on in this thread.  Quite the opposite, 
>it protects our right to know what's in our food 
>in an age when the government is allowing more 
>and more adulterated garbage in it.  The only 
>people that will be affected with adding 3 or 4 
>words to some labels will be those selling GMO laden food.
>
>---Where is that written in the proposition? Do 
>you understand the concept of critical thinking? 
>This statement is clearly nonsense. You counter 
>dict yourself at each new sentence. It is at 
>everyone's expense including the consumers. All 
>or most producers of food will have to abide by 
>this law at a certain expense. Some government 
>agency will demand producers use their 
>accreditation. All this expense will be passed 
>down to the consumer. So in effect those 
>enlightened producers who already inform the 
>consumer will be punished for being the very 
>producers we would all like to see in the market 
>place. Those businesses who already offer 
>accreditation via free market enterprise will be marginalized or destroyed.
>Leigh, you are standing in a forest unable to 
>see any trees. Are you really this stubborn and 
>ignorant as to what freedom is There must be a 
>reason behind your consistent misrepresentation of liberty, what is it?---
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>---How you ever chose this quote to promote your 
>tyranny is beyond my understanding. You really 
>should actually read his book "The Law" before 
>you have the audacity to quote it. This book is 
>expressly contrary to everything you are trying 
>to poison the minds of men with here, yours is 
>not freedom but plunder and tyranny.
>What is so hard to understand about "free 
>markets", most of us are Ron Paul supporters, 
>did we not understand what he meant by free 
>markets? Do we still not understand that free 
>markets work and more laws don't and won't? "Injure no one."
>Monsanto is certainly a corporate monster that 
>would fill its pockets at the expense of the 
>masses, even to death, but how can you 
>constitutionally­ and morally go along with more 
>government control of the private sector? You 
>freely admit that the government will screw it 
>up, so why argue on there side? We whine about 
>government infiltrating every aspect of our 
>lives at the expense of our liberty and then 
>spend 3 days discussing the benefit of voting 
>for more laws against liberty, truth be known, 
>it is our own responsibility to deal with this 
>atrocity in a moral and right way, not the 
>governments. We are so conditioned to run 
>towards the task master that we have trouble 
>keeping a hold of liberty principals, liberty 
>and responsibility is much harder to accomplish 
>than the ease of tyranny, "have someone else do it".
>
>
>Respectfully:
>Bink
>
>PS
>Here is a good quote from The Law you might be interested in:
>
>The law is the organization of the natural right 
>of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a 
>common force for individual forces. And this 
>common force is to do only what the individual 
>forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to 
>protect persons, liberties, and properties; to 
>maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
>
>Bastiat
>
>Bink
>
>On Oct 9, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Leigh Skinner 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>
>I began this thread to explain the fine line 
>between absolute liberty to do any damn thing 
>one wants to do and liberty with 
>responsibility.  The former means each person 
>acts like their wants and desires are more 
>important than the other person's, and the 
>latter means we try to find a neutral position 
>between the conflicting desires.  For instance, 
>while I don't have the right to stop someone 
>from smoking, a smoker doesn't have the right to 
>foul the air near me, either.  When we're both 
>outside, its everyone for himself.  So the 
>no-smoking laws came in to relieve those in 
>restaurants and bars from having to breath in 
>smoke in order to patronize the 
>establishment.  So the smoker was relegated to 
>the sidewalk outside and the non-smoker could 
>enjoy the inside.  That is the free will result 
>of ones decision to begin smoking in the first 
>place.  They don't have extra rights to foul the 
>air around them with impunity.
>
>Prop 37 doesn't even involve all the layers of 
>the smoking issue.  It doesn't deny anyone the 
>right to consume GMO laden food, even in the 
>same room with me.  It simply informs the 
>consumer.  Personally I don't expect the 
>government will enforce this initiative, and in 
>fact I suspect they'll do whatever they can 
>think of to interfere with it.  Having real, 
>healthy, and unadulterated food has been the law 
>for generations until the government starting 
>adding their own spin into the mix with 
>"regulations" that allowed poison into our food 
>and water.  Would I rather we had voluntary 
>labeling...yes I would.  But still truth in 
>labeling would be needed for those who chose to 
>label.  And buyer beware for those who didn't.
>
>This initiative  doesn't restrict a minority or 
>take away any ones rights as someone suggested 
>earlier on in this thread.  Quite the opposite, 
>it protects our right to know what's in our food 
>in an age when the government is allowing more 
>and more adulterated garbage in it.  The only 
>people that will be affected with adding 3 or 4 
>words to some labels will be those selling GMO laden food.
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
>From: Jon <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Tue, October 9,[masked]:21:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>Hi Ryan,
>
>You asked some tough questions.  I'll try to 
>respond to them without going off on a tangent.
>
>The United States doesn't have a free market 
>economy.  Anti smoking laws, as you pointed out, 
>make that evident.  But if you were a bar owner, 
>I would advise you to be careful what you wish 
>for.   From a business perspective, wishing for 
>a free market economy would be foolish for any 
>successful bar owner.  If it were not for 
>regulations, then most bars would go out of 
>business.  The only reason why bars can charge 
>so much is because consumers have such limited 
>options when consuming alcohol outside of their 
>homes.  I agree with you, all restaurant owners 
>should have the freedom to choose if they want 
>to allow their customers to smoke on their 
>property.  But in addition, I believe that all 
>restaurant owners should have the freedom to 
>choose if they want to allow their customers to 
>drink alcoholic beverages on their property.
>
>Without regulations, I would be able to go to 
>Subway and enjoy a sandwich with a beer for the 
>same price of what I would currently pay in gratuity at your bar.
>
>If I had the liberty to be able take my dog for 
>a walk while drinking a beer from a store,  then 
>occasionally I would lose all desire to walk 
>into your bar when I would otherwise be happy to give you my business.
>
>A homeless man could build the capital to buy an 
>ice box, a bag of ice, and a 24 pack of beer 
>after just a couple days of collecting 
>cans.  That's all the ingredients necessary to 
>give you some unwanted competition.  I would't 
>mind having the freedom to support a homeless 
>man by purchasing a cold bottle of beer from him 
>just outside of your business for $1.75.  I'd 
>leave a good tip if he served it to me on a hot 
>day at the beach.  I'd bet that you as a bar 
>owner wouldn't support that aspect of a free 
>market even if you were to gain the freedom to allow your customers to smoke.
>
>The point I'm trying to get to is: you're no 
>exception to the rule.  You appreciate "the hand 
>of the government" whenever it benefits you just like everybody else.
>
>-Juan
>
>
>On Oct 8, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Ryan 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>
>So if I own a business, a bar or restaurant 
>let's say, I shouldn't be able to determine if 
>my place can be a smoking area or not a smoking 
>area? Doesn't the consumer have a right to not 
>eat or drink at my establishment? Another big 
>government move, something I'm surprised you'd support.
>
>The distinction is, are you willing to let 
>businesses cater to what consumer and market 
>wants, as smoking inside would not sit well for 
>many, so many restaurants wouldn't. Or, because 
>it bothers you/allergic ( I'm the same ) do you 
>use the hand of government to do your bidding? 
>Where does it end? Fatty foods, sugary drinks, 
>alcohol? Who gets to decide where the red line is?
>
>On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Leigh Skinner 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>Cameron,
>
>Prop 37 isn't about banning GMO's.  It is about 
>informed consent in the maketplace.  Why is that 
>anti-liberty?  Food manufacturers are welcome to 
>put them in their product, just as I am free not to buy them.
>
>I am allergic to cigarette smoke, but 
>surprisingly enough, I am not for banning them 
>outright.  I am glad resturants don't have 
>smoking because "no smoking" sections didn't 
>work as the smoke traveled all over the 
>room.  Your freedom to swing your arm ends where 
>my nose begins.  Sugary sodas list the sugar.  I 
>buy virgil's zero root beer and zero cola which 
>are sweetened with stevia.  Splenda, technical 
>name sucralos, is quite dangerous three parts 
>chlorine, one part sugar) but again, it is 
>listed on the labels of products containing it.
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
>From: Cameron Butler <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Mon, October 8,[masked]:47:46 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>David,
>
>I would assume you are also in favor of the 
>continued prohibition of drugs (a policy which 
>is a "proven" failure) based on their deadly 
>nature.  You might also be in favor of a ban on 
>cigarettes.  Certainly though, you would support 
>an outright ban on artificial sweeteners 
>saccharine, aspartame, and splenda based on your 
>"soft kill" criteria, but I would suspect 
>perhaps sugary sodas could be included in that 
>ban based on their contribution to obesity and 
>diabetes and hastened mortality ("murder") from same.
>
>In fact, I think you are missing the point.  We 
>are not missing anything about how bad gmo food 
>is.  Regardless of how dangerous it is, is it 
>government's role to prevent people from eating 
>it?  That is the question ultimately being posed.
>
>I know the argument is that when it comes to 
>shooting up heroin, people know it is bad and 
>dangerous but they do it anyway for a variety of 
>reasons... and yet they don't know that the food 
>contains gmo that can kill... I see this, to a 
>point.  However, don't you think that people who 
>are buying multiple 12-packs of sodas with HFCS 
>and/or deadly artificial sweeteners know that 
>the consumption of all of that crap is going to 
>contribute to their early demise?  They do it anyway.
>
>Let's look at this another way.  Is it really 
>the warning label on cigarettes that stops 
>ANYONE from smoking?  Or is it a changed 
>cultural understanding.  The labeling came as a 
>result of the dialogue.  So will labeling 
>without widespread awareness really do 
>anything?  Its not going to have skull and crossbones alongside "GMO", is it?
>
>Here's another key -- ultimately, you will be 
>trusting the GOVERNMENT to make sure major 
>manufacturers are identifying GMO in their 
>products.  Just like the FDA keeps an eye on 
>pharmaceutical giants to make sure we are 
>getting safe drugs.  And since we cannot trust 
>the government, those of us who are already 
>aware of the dangers of GMO will be relying on 
>independent organizations to alternately certify 
>or cross-test these products.  So why not just 
>rely on those more trustworthy entities to begin with???
>
>On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM, david 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>The point that everyone seems to be missing is 
>that gmo foods kill. Plain and simple. They are 
>being sold as gras and equal to natural foods 
>when science has proven otherwise. Deadly "food" 
>is being purposely placed into the food supply. 
>I would even support a government ban on gmo 
>foods, proven to be deadly, from ever being sold 
>in the first place. I guess I have to settle for labels.
>
>The term soft kill applies since the effects 
>take time to materialize but by the time they 
>do, it's too late. I challenge anyone to deny that this is a form of murder.
>
>Do you oppose Murder? Murder is murder whether 
>it is instant or pro-longed, correct?
>
>There is nothing that can be said to dispute this.
>
>
>
>From: Cameron Butler <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Saturday, October 6,[masked]:54 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>Its very difficult to certify corn and soybeans 
>as organic, and I do not trust USDA organic 
>certification at all, but there are multiple 
>independent certifications for organic and 
>non-GMO that I do trust.  But I do not see how 
>having mandated labeling solves the issue you 
>are describing.  So General Mills has to put on 
>their box of Corn Chex that it is made with GMO 
>corn - that in and of itself is good, but 
>doesn't solve the issue you are describing.  I 
>have watched and read lots of material on the 
>dangers/issues of GMO, but I will watch the G. Edward Griffith clip.
>
>In regards to your response to Ryan, I 
>definitely do not see how this is akin to 
>religious liberty/1st amendment rights.  It 
>seems requiring additional labeling requirements 
>by manufacturers/retail­ers would be more 
>analogous to requiring churches to have 
>government mandated disclosures about what kind 
>of teaching or sect or denomination they represent ;-)
>
>In Liberty,
>Cameron
>
>
>On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Leigh Skinner 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>Cameron,
>
>I understand where those who disagree with me on 
>this are coming from.  My point is that there is 
>no such thing as "certified" organic anymore 
>unless the crop is grown in a hothouse.  That 
>takes choice out of the picture.  I just sent 
>out some links from G. Edward Griffith's "Realty 
>Zone" on GMO's. Scientists and leaders in 
>organic farming speak out about GMO's and 
>whether to label them.   I suggest you watch and 
>read them and then get back to me.
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
>From: Cameron Butler <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Sat, October 6,[masked]:39:46 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>Leigh,
>
>You and I have seen eye to eye on quite a number 
>of issues and I'm completely with you as far as 
>being anti-GMO.  I'm all about organic 
>gardening, self-sufficiency, etc. etc.  But if 
>it were true that "we are told this in many ways 
>as we are growing up", and that were sufficient, 
>then might it be true that there wouldn't be a 
>pandemic of overconsumption of refined white 
>sugar and HFCS beverages, not to mention the 
>rampant consumption of dangerous artificial sweeteners.
>However, I think you missed my point - my point 
>is where do you draw the line at using 
>government to force manufacturers to do 
>things?  Out of self-preservation I understand 
>the desire to use a ballot initiative to stem 
>the tide of GMO poison, I truly do.  But, my 
>Coca Cola and white sugar example was to point 
>out that labeling requirements due to dangers of 
>food and substances can be taken to all kinds of extremes.
>
>"Walmart has a limited number of organic, but 
>what about their other choices" -- yes, most of 
>the food they sell is laden with GMO grains and 
>sweeteners, and can be considered dangerous food.
>The question here is: is it up to government (or 
>the people to use government) to protect people 
>from being uninformed, or is it up to people to 
>become informed about what they eat and purchase 
>food only from those manufacturers who fully 
>disclose and certify what they are offering 
>consumers?  What if there were no government 
>mandated requirement to list ingredients at 
>all?  How different would things really be?  The 
>majority would march off happily to consume 
>whatever is advertised and cheap, and the 
>informed would only purchase products from 
>manufacturers that label and certify their ingredients.
>Even if you get mandatory GMO labeling, there 
>will still be plenty of dangerous foods and 
>additives where people need to inform themselves 
>in order to avoid them.  Things like mandatory 
>labeling and the FDA as a whole provide 
>consumers with a false sense of security.  The 
>misconception is that consumers do not have an 
>informed choice and mandated labeling enhances 
>liberty because it gives consumers choice.   I 
>do not think this is so.  Consumers have a 
>choice now - they can purchase products from 
>manufacturers willing to certify their foods as 
>GMO-free, or they can purchase products from 
>manufacturers who will not (with the reasonable 
>assumption that they contain GMO ingredients). 
>So while my initial instinct was to 
>wholeheartedly support mandated GMO labeling, 
>based on the above reasons, I am tending to 
>think it would not be the liberty approach (a top-down solution).
>
>Respectfully,
>Cameron
>
>
>On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Leigh Skinner 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>Cameron,
>
>While Coke and refined white sugar are bad for 
>one, we are told this in many ways as we are 
>growing up.  GMO's are entirely different, as 
>they are being presented publicly as just 
>fine.  And the market approach will take a lot 
>longer.  Walmart has a limited number or 
>organic, but what about their other 
>choices?  The commercials against Prop 37 are 
>falsing saying it will drive up prices.  We 
>already have food labeling, but a few things 
>aren't included in the requirements.  Just how 
>is it driving up prices to add two words, GMO 
>corn, or GMO peaches, or whatever, to the list?
>
>And one more thing.  As Ron Paul supporters, we 
>believe in states rights.  Now here is CA 
>voting, not a federal mandate.  Is it really 
>wrong if the overwhelming majority of 
>Californians vote to label GMO's?  Isn't such 
>freedom what we've been campaigning for?
>
>Leigh
>It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
>rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
>setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
>Government is the great fiction through which 
>everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
>From: Cameron Butler <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Fri, October 5,[masked]:34:52 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>Emotionally I tend to agree with all of the 
>arguments for mandatory labeling.  However, 
>couldn't one use the same arguments to contend 
>that a health disclosure should be placed on a 
>sack of refined white sugar, or a can of coca 
>cola?  Those things (certainly at the level that 
>the clear majority of americans consume them) 
>are a serious health hazard in my estimation.
>
>I wouldn't vehemently oppose GMO labeling, but 
>wouldn't a liberty-consistent approach to this 
>be that consumers choose not to purchase 
>products that don't certify whether or not they 
>contain GMO ingredients?  Sure, its more 
>expensive than buying General Mills, Post, 
>Kellogg, etc., but GMO garbage is cheap!  In 
>many other first world nations they spend a much 
>higher percentage of income on food than we 
>do.  Healthy food is a choice.  For instance, 
>when consumers voted with their pocketbook to 
>get more organic, gluten free, etc. products, 
>Walmart chose to carry more such items.
>
>Do I believe corporations can be influenced by 
>or participate in a political agenda, even a 
>nefarious agenda?  Yes, I do.  But I also 
>believe they are primarily influenced by 
>consumer demand.  If we demand real food through 
>our purchasing decisions we don't need the nanny 
>state government to protect us from the GMO Frankenfood.
>
>Respectfully,
>Cameron
>
>On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Rob Hanbury 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
>I don't live in east county but today was the 
>first time in like a year where "chemtrails" 
>really came across as blatant and in your face.
>
>To me, asking for mandatory labeling is against 
>libertarian ideology, you're right Mike, but 
>it's one of the few exceptions where I'm willing 
>to abondon my philosophy for practical 
>advancement, does it make me a hypocrite as a 
>Ron Paul supporter? Perhaps. Oh well! It is a 
>serious enough issue where I don't mind some 
>requirements because the fraud these companies 
>have committed has not resulted in any kind 
>prosecution or forced them to change. Since we 
>don't have a free market system, and since the 
>general population is unaware of the fact the 
>60% of the things they eat are unfit for human 
>consumption  I'm all for prop 37.
>
>-Rob Hanbury
>
>
>
>----------
>From: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>Date: Thu, 4 Oct[masked]:57:03 -0400
>
>
>I'm voting YES too on Prop. 37. Had we known the 
>stuff was in the corn my father wouldn't have 
>eaten Corn Flakes every day for  years only to 
>have cancer and other health issues. The stuff 
>in the milk he drank from the cows they gave 
>shots to in order to produce more milk probably killed him too.
>
>Food today is NOT packaged like they did 10+ 
>years ago. Crops are NOT grown the same with all 
>the chemicals and pesticides. Sure if you eat it 
>once or twice every month maybe no big deal but 
>the older generation just eat plain foods and 
>THIS plain, unlabeled processed food can KILL! I 
>want to know if it is real or created in a lab. 
>Then its MY choice to buy or not. If the gov't 
>says its "safe" I believe the opposite!
>
>FYI did you notice in the sky Chemtrails today in east county?
>From: david <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:34 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>GMO foods are an attack on everyone. GMO foods 
>have been proven to cause tumors, cancers, 
>etc..... and with that being the case, I would 
>consider the labeling requirement a law a law 
>that is "defensive in nature". I should at least 
>be warned that I am eating poison when I crack 
>open a box of Frosted Flakes. Should we not have 
>the liberty to decide our own health? How is our 
>liberty not protected then when we can be 
>poisoned and not warned in advance? I see 
>nothing wrong with transparency and full 
>disclosure. I want the liberty to decide whether 
>I eat good food or bad food but how can I tell 
>the difference if the person selling the food is 
>not honest about what is inside it?
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, this new law will 
>require foods containing GMO's to be labeled. It 
>mandates nothing of the opposite.
>
>If the small farmer does not purchase GMO seeds 
>then why would anyone bother coming up with an 
>idea to mandate a label that says so. That is 
>not what this proposition is about.
>
>I am voting Yes on Prop 37 and below is an example why,
>
>It's the same shit, just a different decade
>
><http://www.youtub...­
>
>http://www.youtub...­
>
>
>
>
>From: Mike Benoit 
><<mailto:[­address removed]>[address­ removed]>
>To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:50 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
>vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>"What, then, is law? It is the collective 
>organization of the individual right to lawful 
>defense" Laws are bad when they are a perversion 
>of the definition above. We have a right to 
>defend our rights with deadly force if need be 
>and that right can be delegated as a power to 
>government for the common application of this 
>responsive force. Laws against murder, robbery, 
>and rape are defensive in nature (they. They are 
>not mandates (forcing people to do something). 
>Forcing people or companies to label their 
>products are a perversion, of law. You don't 
>protect rights by violating rights. You have the 
>right to buy or not buy any product that is out 
>there. By claiming that people can force other 
>people to do things against their will is a 
>support for tyranny. What is tyranny? It is the 
>taking control of something without the right to do so.
>
>We can delegate to government only that which we have a right to do ourselves.
>
>Now since some people are ready to take away 
>liberty and property rights from other people I 
>only hope they realize their own inconsistency 
>and do not complain when others do it to them.
>
>Of course we know that when you give up liberty 
>for security you end up with neither. Laws like 
>this hurt the little guys and justify government 
>making it illegal to sell from your own garden. 
>After all you don't have the label on. Special 
>interest groups get waivers. Sometimes seed can 
>travel in the wind and land on a farm where the 
>farmer only planted heirloom seed yet some GMO 
>seed made its way into his farm. So the products 
>he produces and you eat have some gmo by accident.
>
>Who shall police this new perversion of law? Who 
>will get caught in the net? Will you be making 
>sure all the restaurants only use non GMO or do 
>you want the State that you are expanding to do that?
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>At 11:10 AM 10/3/2012, you wrote:
> > In reference to the "libertarian" point of 
> view... since when are all laws bad? Why would 
> requiring a company to disclose ingredients to 
> the consumer not allow for more choice, more 
> competition and more integrity to commerce? 
>  From the "libertarian" point of view I would think this is a home run.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Leigh Skinner <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
> > To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
> vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
> >
> > Snewbegin:
> >
> > There are other mandates that save lives, 
> like laws against murder and robbery.  No 
> mandates is anarchy.  Is that what you're after?
> >
> > But aside from that, people are dying from 
> the FDA's actions, or rather inaction because 
> of big corporations and congressional 
> shortcomings.  In the meantime a non-government 
> sponsored initiative, Prop 37, is on the ballot 
> to try and contend with the FDA until it 
> hopefully goes away someday.  I don't expect 
> the government to enforce it, but it will give 
> people like me the tools to sue if I am ever 
> hurt by a manufacturer's unlisted GMO 
> ingredients (if they are a significant percentage) and I can prove it.
> >
> > You, of course, are free to vote against 
> it.  But someday the government will hit too 
> close to home for you, and perhaps then you 
> will understand that a narrow set of mandates 
> does not take away your liberty.  And I notice 
> that you haven't explained how labeling takes 
> away your liberty?  Seems to me that it helps 
> to inform us, and an informed citizenry is what 
> will eventually set us free.  That is one of 
> the main points of Audit the Fed, because when 
> everyone learns what they are doing to this 
> country, they will rebel and End the Fed.  In a 
> similar way, when the population sees how much 
> GMO's have taken over our food, both packaged 
> and fresh, they will not be pleased.  Right now 
> I argue with uninformed people about GMO's 
> because they don't realize how prevalent they are.
>
> >
> > And as for Libertarian thought, I agree with 
> much of it, but I believe there can 
> occasionally be exceptions in extraordinary times.
> >
> >
> >
> > Leigh
> > It does not take a majority to prevail, but 
> rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on 
> setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
> > Government is the great fiction through which 
> everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
> >
> >
> >
> > From: 
> "<mailto:[address­ removed]>[address­ removed]" 
> <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
> > To: <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
> > Cc: Leigh Skinner <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]>
>
> > Sent: Tue, October 2,[masked]:06:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural 
> vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
> >
> >
> > ---- Leigh Skinner <<mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]> wrote:
> > Leigh, from a libertarian point of view the 
> FDA should not exist. Actually, it is the libertarians
> > educating people on its principles that will make it not a fringe party.
> > I understand your passion but someone else has a passion somewhere else
> > that is requiring the government with its 
> legalized violence to carry out its
> > mandates. You need to read more Austrian economics and libertarian thought
> > to see there is another way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
> will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
> (<mailto:[address­ removed]>[address­ removed])
> > This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
> (<mailto:[address­ removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>
> > To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit 
> his/her 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> profile
>
> > Set my mailing list to email me 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> they are sent | 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> one daily email | 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> send me mailing list messages
> >
> > Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
> > []
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
> will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
> (<mailto:[address­ removed]><mail­to:[address removed]>[address­ removed])
> > This message was sent by Nick Cozzone 
> (<mailto:[address­ removed]>[address­ removed]) 
> from 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
> > To learn more about Nick Cozzone, visit 
> his/her 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> profile
>
> > Set my mailing list to email me 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> they are sent | 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> one daily email | 
> <<http://www.meetup...­ 
> send me mailing list messages
> >
> > Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
> > []
> >
>
>Michael Benoit
>Ron Paul for President
><http://www.meetup...­
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>http://www.meetup...­
>This message was sent by Mike Benoit 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Mike Benoit, visit his/her 
>member profile: 
><http://www.meetup...­
>Set my mailing list to email me
>
>As they are sent
><http://www.meetup...­
>
>In one daily email
><http://www.meetup...­
>
>Don't send me mailing list messages
><http://www.meetup...­
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by david 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about david , visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Rosemary Kaplar 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>from <http://www.meetup...­ Paul 
>for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Rosemary Kaplar, visit 
>his/her <http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg205.m...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Rob Hanbury 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>from <http://www.meetup...­ Paul 
>for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Rob Hanbury, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg205.m...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Cameron Butler 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit 
>his/her <http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg5.mai...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Cameron Butler 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit 
>his/her <http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg5.mai...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Cameron Butler 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit 
>his/her <http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by david 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about david , visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg205.m...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Cameron Butler 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>  from <http://www.meetup...­ 
>Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit 
>his/her <http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://us.mg205.m...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Ryan 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Ryan, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Jon 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Jon, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by BINK 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) 
>from <http://www.meetup...­ Paul 
>for President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about BINK, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Leigh Skinner 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 
>[masked] | <mailto:[address removed]>[address­ removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>Bink
><mailto:[addr­ess removed]>[address­ removed]
>Fight the Fight, Light the Light, Right is Might.
>
><http://www.pbjfre...­
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by BINK 
>([address removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about BINK, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
><http://sn107w.snt...­, 
>PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message 
>will be sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>(<mailto:[add­ress removed]>[address­ removed])
>This message was sent by Ken Costanzo 
>([address removed]) from 
><http://www.meetup...­ Paul for 
>President 2012 San Diego County.
>To learn more about Ken Costanzo, visit his/her 
><http://www.meetup...­ profile
>Set my mailing list to email me 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>they are sent | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>one daily email | 
><http://www.meetup...­ 
>send me mailing list messages
>
>Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]
>[]
>

Michael Benoit
Ron Paul for President
http://www.meetup...­ 

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy