Colorado District 3 Congressional candidate Gregory Gilman to attend and speak at the Pre-Independence Day Tea Party Rally in La Junta, Colorado

Congressional Candidate Gregory Gilman is traveling across the State meeting with voters of Colorado’s Third Congressional District. In discussing the current political environment, Mr. Gilman said, “The people of this State are frustrated and angry at Congress. There is a sense of hopelessness. Our elected officials have not lived up to the expectations of the electorate.” Offering solutions instead of rhetoric Mr. Gilman replied, “We must come together to form a powerful coalition to take control of our Federal Government, I see the Libertarian Party as the vehicle to form that coalition. It is only when we have a majority will we be able to return this government to the People.”

Gregory Gilman will speak at the rally in La Junta, Colorado on Saturday July 3, 2010. He supports the philosophy of smaller government, personal responsibility and economic freedom. In discussing the Libertarian Party he stated, “The two party system is the greatest threat to our Liberty. As more people become disenchanted we will see the rise of alternative ideas and solutions. Look at the track record and the current state of affairs. We cannot continue on the current path.”

About Gregory Gilman: Gregory Gilman is native of Colorado and an Electrical Engineering graduate of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. A Stanford University Fellow with more than 20 years of engineering and management experience. Mr. Gilman currently resides in Custer County, Colorado and is proud to be a member of the Libertarian Party. More information is available at www.gilman2010.com.

Contact Information:

Gregory Gilman

140 W. 29^th Street

Suite 319

Pueblo, Co 81008

Phone: (719) 778-8198

Web: www.gilman2010.com

Email: gilman4congress@gmail.com

NAIS, Codex Alimentarius, Bill S510 and Other Bedtime Stories to Guarantee Nightmares

By Tamrah Jo Ortiz

Thanks to my good friends on Facebook, I was alerted that the ugly head of the government is once again poking its’ large and obnoxious nose into places it doesn’t belong.   Yes, I realize this is a inflammatory statement, hence, my writing here, instead of posting this as a comment at the www.opencongress.org website.  (which, if you’d like, you can visit and look at the hoopla going on over various bills.)

So, let’s take a look at each of these and try to make sense of them.

NAIS – The National Animal Identification System.   In brief, this idea is supposedly born of the desire to quickly identify and destroy animals that pose a threat to both food supply and our existence. (mad cow disease, avian bird flu, anyone?)

What is not so clear is how anyone thinks any of this will really work.   Number 1, the folks that want to implement this currently employ thousands to audit tax returns and apparently have not been successful in creating a database or secure electronic means of verifying taxes or conducting a paperless census (which, by the way, we filled out, returned and apparently was ‘lost’ as a census person showed up at my house saying they didn’t get ours.   On the flip side, my mom got 2 censuses to fill out and a friend never received any….)

Now, if these folks have not centralized, streamlined and made efficient the operations they have been in charge of for decades, how in the world are we to believe they can implement this kind of system and let us know about diseased food within 20 years of our consumption of it?

Number 2 – current figures show that given the ‘requirements’ of the system, most of the costs will fall on the small farmers and ranchers – courtesy of Wikipedia is the following:

“The costs of becoming NAIS compliant for a U.S. beef producer were found to be a minimum of $2.08 a head for large producers and as much as $17.56 a head for smaller operations, with an estimated average cost to cow/calf producers of $6.26 per animal, according to research by Christopher Raphael Crosby of Kansan State University’s Department of Agricultural Economics published in 2008.”

Does anyone hear “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”?

Number 3 – Historically, outbreaks of disease occur in close population, improperly nourished animals.   Farmer John who has 15 head of cattle and 160 acres of pasture does not face the same challenges as Mr. Beef, who has crammed 5,000 cows into a feedlot the size of a Wal-mart parking lot, where calves play on hills of cow patties and drink milk produced from the ingestion of soybean and corn meal (when cows have evolved to do just fine, thank you very much, on grass.)

Plus, Farmer John really depends on his herd for his food, to feed his family and perhaps a neighbor or two and to bring in some extra cash to pay the ever-increasing cost of living expenses.  So he has a HUGE investment in making sure his herd is healthy and well-nourished.  The loss of even one cow can make or break him.

Mr. Beef can depend on tax breaks, an adjustment of market prices, government bailouts, etc, if he somehow manages to lose his herd to disease.   So who do you think takes better care of their herd?

On to the next – Codex Alimentarius – Proponents will tell you it’s an international effort to ensure the safety of food for all – as well as to keep me from accidently killing myself from taking too much Vitamin C.

Again, these efforts are brought to you by folks who can’t even balance their own budgets and settle disputes among themselves in a peaceful manner.  Do you really think they know how much Vitamin C I can handle and furthermore, if I were receiving nutritious food, would I even need a supplement?   If they are so invested in “Nutritious, Safe Food to further the health and well-being of the populace” then why did they ignore the published findings of biochemist Dr. Mary Enig in the 70’s, who warned of the dangers of trans-fats and hydrogenated fats to the human body?  Um, no, took about 40 years before they figured that one out (if they even have yet……………)

I also find it interesting that many countries within the World Effort of this measure are ARDENTLY opposed to GMO foods and have been very insistent on pushing for foods containing those types of ingredients to be Labeled.   Those who have a vested interest in controlling both seed and food supplies, by getting ‘patents’ on their genetically modified seeds and plants have kept up the pressure and keep taking a run at getting that ‘pesky little nuisance’ of required labeling for GMO foods buried under the rug.

All in all, I cannot see the reasoning for extending all this effort on the Codex other than for countries who take their food and health seriously to put up a ‘fence’ to keep those exports out from countries that do not.  (meaning, US)

So with the history of these two long-running dramas, I now come to the most recent – Senate Bill S510.

Innocuously titled, “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act”, it lists high-sounding ideals and includes some of the following:

food facility re-inspection (um…I worked as a waitress for 12 years, I can tell you, restaurants get inspected every year……)
food recalls (aren’t they already allowed to do that?)
a voluntary qualified importer program (have these people never heard of eating locally?)
So those violently opposed to this bill read it and see how easily seed and food control could be placed in the hands of those who have no business telling us what we can grow or eat, share with our neighbors or sell at the local farmer’s market.   And I agree with them to a point; while the bill does not specifically state any of these intents, the large generalized points of it are open to all kinds of interpretations.

History tells me the interpreters will translate it for the benefit of themselves, their agency budget and their large campaign contributors (corporations) before they will for my health and well being.

Again, if you look to history, deaths and illness related to the consumption of contaminated, diseased foods, has been linked to large corporate mono-culture farms, not the small local producers.  Why?  Well, because the small local producer not only feeds you, but their own family.  They don’t have the time or the energy (or the insanity) to grow one garden with ‘good stuff’ for their family and another with ‘questionable stuff’ to sell at the local market.

In addition, if I get ‘bad food’ at the local farmer’s market, I know exactly who to go to with my accusations.   When large farms put out questionable produce, it has also traveled through one or more broker warehouses, a packaging plant or two, the transportation gamut….on and on and its’ so easy to pass the buck on who exactly is to blame.

I’m also curious as to why Homeland Security is one of the committees listed on the bill’s information page.  What, are they afraid terrorists are going to send us toxic bananas?   Newsflash, if everyone ate organic and locally, this fear would be laughable.  And I can tell you, any terrorist shows up at our local farmers market with evil intent on his mind, I can guarantee there are enough ‘rednecks’ around here that are just waiting for an opportunity to show the world what real Homeland Security looks like.

I also wonder just where they are going to get the money to implement all this when they are already crying about ‘deficits’ and ‘budget cuts’.   To my mind, this has less to do with feeding the nation safely and more to do with feeding the oversized monster we call our government, as well as nudging out any competition to the large centralized food companies.

Implementation, testing and compliance enforcement take money – and that money will come from those who want to ‘buy into the market’ (meaning smaller operations won’t be able to afford to be in the market) –  but most of the money will come from you and me, the consumer.   What?  You don’t think so?  Just who do you think is paying for the Tobacco Company Settlements?   It isn’t the companies or the government, its’ the consumers.  But I’ll leave that debate for another time.

The legislation listed above can only make sense in a climate of fear.   They can only pass when we blindly believe the government is really trying to protect us.  When we believe that death is more heinous than liberty. (Oh where is Patrick Henry when you need him?)

Quit looking to the government to save you from harm.   Know those who grow your food.   Have a relationship.  Trust me, they are much more invested in your health and well being than the FDA is.  Because without you, they don’t have a livelihood.  The FDA and government don’t either, but they have forgotten.

Remind them.

Health Care Legislation in Colorado Reflects Worldview of Policy Makers

By Janak Joshi MD (Ret)

Obamacare focused our attention on national health care reform.  But, it’s important to know what reforms are being talked about at the Colorado Legislature. What’s also clear looking at various bills is the difference in legislative philosophy between the political parties.

One criteria for national reform was to lower the cost of premiums by encouraging market competition. Regrettably, this is not a part of the 2,800+ page bill signed by President Obama.

In Colorado, Governor Ritter signed the following Democrat-sponsored bills that create the infrastructure for a nationalized healthcare system.  Meanwhile, Attorney General John Suthers has joined with 19 other states attorneys general to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law that mandates each person buy health care insurance – or pay a fine.

HB1028 creates a universal application form to help families know what early childhood health care and education services they are entitled to receive.
HB1330 enables an advisory committee to create a statewide all-payer health claims database.  The database would collect, aggregate, distribute and publicly report performance data on quality, health outcomes, health disparities, cost, utilization and pricing – all in compliance with the privacy protections of HPPA.  But, the group authorized to collect the information could audit the raw data for accuracy.  The Fiscal Note on the bill says the cost of the database won’t come into effect until 2012, so the cost is unknown.  There is no consideration given to how much capturing such data and reporting it to the State will cost physicians, health care providers, and insurance companies.

SB153 creates a council to develop strategies for implementing a “systemic transformation” of the behavioral health system, formerly known as mental health and substance abuse.

HB1004 directs the insurance commissioner to set up a board to develop a universal reporting form for all health care insurers.

Republicans offered several common sense bills to reduce the cost of insurance, but they were all killed by the Democrat-controlled legislature. HB1163 would have allowed interstate purchases of health care insurance; HB1168 was a resolution to Congress for a federal income tax deduction for health insurance premiums paid by individuals; and HB1154 would have placed a one-year moratorium on mandated covered treatments.  This bill would have also required a cost/benefit analysis of mandates.
Colorado currently has 53 mandated coverages, including the recently passed Democrat bill HB1021 that requires insurance companies to pay for all maternity care and contraception, except abortion services and HB1252 that makes the cost of a mammogram recommended by a health care provider to be covered by insurance.
Add to this the newly passed Democrat bill HB1008, which says there may be no discrimination in pricing health care policies based on gender, and the cost of health care policies will increase yet again. (Women’s health care costs are typically more than men’s, due to pregnancy.) If you are a healthy young male, your premiums will go up even more.

Republicans were successful in passing a few bills to reduce costs and improve access to health care.  HB1029 allows the State to negotiate agreements with medical equipment suppliers so that people on Medicaid or those on the waiting list for benefits can purchase high-quality equipment and supplies at the lowest cost.

Another Republican bill to reduce the costs of health care premiums is HB1160, which will allow health insurance carriers to offer incentives for participation in wellness programs that meet certain standards.

HB1322, by Republican Representative Kent Lambert, was passed.  It allows cost effective telemedicine programs to continue in Colorado.

Democrats did kill one of their bills, HB1397.  A similar bill died last year when small business owners argued that mandating accrued paid sick leave was not only an example of Nanny Statism run amok, but also a sure job-killer.
Democrats tend to see government as a kindly overseer with legislation designed to protect individuals who can’t or won’t take care of themselves, such as seen in SB189’s clean needle exchange program for substance abusers.
Republican legislators and others, like me, believe that individuals are generally competent and capable, that individuals will make better decisions for themselves and their families than a bureaucrat could, and that the marketplace only functions because people enter into it when all parties believe they benefit.

The identified cost for the Colorado healthcare bills described above could be as much as $2 million and five new State employees paid from taxes, fees and grants.  But for many of the bills, we don’t what it will cost because usage is unknown and the costs to businesses and consumers cannot be calculated.

Janak Joshi MD (Ret) has practiced medicine in Colorado Springs for 31 years.