OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand THE BUREAUCRACY vs. FREEDOM OF CHOICE CAPTAIN JOE H. FERGUSON Americans have the right to assume that our government exists to protect us in exercising our freedom. For many, however, the vast bureaucracies in Washington have proven to be counterproductive to freedom. One such bureaucracy is the Food and Drug Administration, which supposedly guarantees us that our food and drugs will be pure and effective. Many decisions as to what is and what is not pure and effective are value judgments, however. And when the person making such judgments is enveloped in the political thinking prevailing in Washington, reason and justice lose out to politics. Such appears to be the case in the current dispute between many citizens of this country and the FDA on the issue of Laetrile, the vitamin treatment for the control of cancer. Laetrile is produced from natural foods such as apricot pits. Its proponents claim that it has proven to be very effective in the treatment and control of various forms of cancer. The FDA claims that Laetrile is worthless. The battle between Laetrile proponents and the FDA has been going on for years. During this time, the FDA has never produced evidence that Laetrile is dangerous and refuses to consider the evidence produced by the proponents of Laetrile which they claim substantiates its value. THE BUREAUCRACY BACKED INTO A CORNER It appears at this time that the proponents of Laetrile are winning some major battles against the FDA, not only in allowing the citizens of this country to make their own decisions regarding whether to use Laetrile, but in proving that Laetrile is indeed effective in the control of cancer. Previously, the FDA forbade any production of Laetrile in this country and any imports. Now, patients have won court battles and have court orders to allow them to import Laetrile for their own use. This, of course, infuriates the FDA. Dr. Harold Manner, chairman of Loyolas biology department, was once a skeptic on Laetrile. He instituted a series of tests on mice, however, and reported the complete cure in 100 percent of test mice of spontaneous mammary cancer. While this one series of tests on mice does not by itself prove the efficacy of Laetrile, it is merely one of many which do offer substantial support. Dr. Manner is so convinced now of not only the effectiveness of Laetrile, but its lack of any harmful side effects that he publicly offered a challenge to the FDA, I will gladly roll up my sleeve anywhere at any time and inject myself daily with doses of Laetrile, if any doctor in the U.S. will inject himself with chemotherapeutic drugs. To date, none of the FDA bureaucrats have stepped forward to accept the challenge. It is probably safe to say that none ever will. THE DANGER OF BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL OVER MEDICINE The Laetrile case provides ample evidence that there is a definite danger in allowing the bureaucracies in Washington to decide what is and what is not good for us. The basic problem, of course, is that it takes away our right to make our own decisions regarding what is good for us. The second problem is that the positions taken by the bureaucracies are often dominated by political factors rather than scientific, and the third problem is that once the bureaucracy has taken a position, it seems determined to never change that position, regardless of public sentiment or of evidence proving that position erroneous. The FDA and the American Medical Association, which has joined the FDA in outlawing Laetrile, have backed themselves into a corner from which there is no apparent escape. For example, if Laetrile is effective, and if the FDA and the AM A were to reverse their positions and admit it, just look at the lawsuits to which they would be liable from cancer patients and the relatives of cancer patients who have died. There is no doubt that the fear of not only lawsuits but of the inevitable outburst of public sentiment which would result, causes the bureaucrats to continue to deny even the possibility of any effectiveness of Laetrile and also to refuse to objectively consider any evidence supporting it. This is the danger of having the bureaucracies in Washington rule and dominate not only the entire economy, but our lives as well. What is needed is some new faces in the houses of congress to reduce the awesome decisionpowers of these bureaucracies and return making powers to the people where they belong. October 20, 1977 The Utah Independent Page 3 The Trilateral Commission THE SHRINKING FAMILY FARMS Sen. James A. McClure Washington- - by John h McManus (R-ltl- a) It was once the American dream to own your own land, to put water and sweat on that land, and make a life for a man. a wife and a family. It is that dream, come true, that helped to settle much of the western United States. And beginning with the Reclamation Act of 1902, the reality of putting water on much of the arid west was seen. Now in 1977 we find ourselves with vast acreages of developed agriculture land, w ith hundreds of reclamation projects providing water to those lands, and with the original 1902 Reclamation Act still serving as the basic law. The law has become partially outdated, however, and we must change it to make it conform to modern agricultural realities. Simply put, the law states that a man and wife can irrigate 320 acres of farmland with federal reclamation water. They may lease an additional 160 acres. But that is no longer acceptable. Seventy-fiv- e years ago. a 160- 320-acfarm was just about all or It onc family could handle. It was an provided a living. economic unit. But it is no news that individual farms have been growing in size. Modern agricultural practices demand that a farm be larger. We no longer draw a plow behind a horse, and a family often farms many hundreds of acres with the aid of modern technology. 160-aclimitation The provision ofhe 1902 law is still on the book, however. This year the Secretary of Interior announced that he would begin to enforce that law, pushed by recent court decisions. The consequences are very serious. It is difficult to obtain exact data on the number of Idaho farms which would be economically destroyed w ith the enforcement of this law. And it is hardly fair to begin enforcing this law now, when federal agencies have ignored it for years. The solution is not difficult. We in the Congress must change the law.' We must not allow the large corporate farms to take advantage of federally provided agricultural water, but we must recognize that family farms are not what they used to be around the turn of the century. am confident that Congress will act to solve this problem. What we must do in the meantime is to prevent enforcement of the 160-aclimitation." During a recent White House meeting I asked President Carter, personally, to delay enforcement of the law for one year, giving Congress time to take action. Further, 1. along with other western senators, am introducing a resolution calling for this one-yemoratorium on enforcement. Changes in the original 1902 Reclamation Act are already being considered which will permanently solve the problem. To the farmer in Idaho I can say with some confidence that we are working hard towards a solution - a solution which will come in time to avoid disaster for many of our family farms. re re tor-in-Chi- Helm nut, Massachusetts When David Rockefeller starts a new organization, prudent men take notice. One of the most powerful individuals on earth, the man who is Chairman of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the immensely iniluential Council on Foreign Relations does not engage in trivialities. In 1972, therefore, when Mr. Rockefeller proposed the Trilateral Commission, it bore watching. And ever since the proposal became a reality in duly 197.3, the phenomenal rise in importance of the Commission is testimony to the Rockefeller clout. Trilateralists Take Over The organization is barely four years old, yet from its ranks have come President Carter, Vice President Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. Secretary of the Trea-W- . Michael Blumenthal, sur.v National Security Chief Zbigniew Brzezinski. Disarmament Negotiator Paul Warnke, Am- bassador to the UN Andrew-Youngand a dozen more top federal officials. The Julv 26. 1977 membership roster of the Commission proudly lists in a separate category these Former , Members in Public Service, each of whom became a former member upon achieving high office. And in addition to the former members, the roster also lists the names of the Commissions present members: 84 North Americans, 92 Western Europeans. and 74 Japanese. Among the current Trilateralists 72 from the United States (there are twelve from Canada) can be found tw'o Governors (Rockefel- ler of West Virginia and Thompson of Illinois); four U.S. Senators (Cranston, Culver. Danfort h. and Roth); six U.S. Congressmen (Anderson, Brademas, Cohen, Conable, Fraser, and Foley); an assortment of top labor leaders, bankers. industrialists, and educators; and such prominent Americans as Republican National Chairman William Brock, Time Edi- A of Hedley Donovan, ef and a college professor named Henry Kissinger. Whats It All About? Zbigniew Brzezinskis 1970 book Between Two Ages proposed a grand scheme for limiting the sovereignty of nations and eventually bringing about "the goal of world government. Part One of his plan called for "the forging of links between the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Part Two in- volved the extension of these' links to more advanced communist countries leading to a of whole the world. government A close reading of Between Two Afies also show's that Brzezinski warmly admires Marxism and boldly announces that the United States is afflicted two years after this revealing book was published, David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Com mission according to Brzezinskis plan (with Canada thrown in). And when the Commission was organized, its first Director turned out to be Zbigniew' Brzezinski himself. Within months of its formation, an obscure Governor from Georgia met with David Rockefeller in London, and Jimmy Carter became one of the first Trilateral members. Now President, Mr. Carter has admitted that his connections through the Commission aided him in his climb to the White House. Trilateral members would undoubtedly laugh off any suggestion of sinister purpose in their association. Virtually all are so thoroughly imbued with love for world government and ill regard for any nation acting in its own best interests that they see nothing at all wrong with sacrificing the sovereignty and independence of all nations for government. It is nevertheless true that the Trilateral Commission is the work of Marxist dreamers and d schemers. It is also true that they have a hammer-locon our nation. one-w'orl- k W77 The John liirt h Society Features free society is possible only if it is composed individuals. -- Admiral Ben Aloreell self-disciplin- ed 25C Dozen assorted copies older than 2 months $1.00 25 for $5.00 50 for $9.00 100 for $17.50 ISSUE DESIRED NAME ar ADDRESS & ZIP STATE Enclosed $ each 12 for $2.75 Price includes postage and handling. CITY d one-worl- 1 re h Yet less than obsolescence. BUY AND DISTRIBUTE EXTRA COPIES OF THE UTAH INDEPENDENT 1 w-it- Total amount 57 East Oakland Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 841 15 |