RSS

Consumers

05 Dec

Man Or Other Animals (MOOA) [courtesy of Google Images]

Man Or Other Animals (MOOA)
[courtesy of Google Images]

•  If you’ve read my previous articles on “Man or other Animals” (“MOOA”), you know that the definitions of “drugs,” “food” and (medical) “devices” found at 21 USC 321 presume that man is merely an “animal” rather than a “man made in God’s image” who is given “dominion over the animals” as per Genesis 1:26-28.  Thus, under Genesis 1:26-28, a man of the Jewish or Christian faiths cannot be treated as an “animal” without violating his freedom of religion.

Therefore, there religious basis for resisting any law that relies on the government’s definitions of “food,”  “drugs” and (medical) “devices”.

•  If you visit the federal government’s Food and Drug Administration’s website at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Whatwedo/History/default.htm you’ll find a brief description of the FDA’s history.

According to that history,

“The Food and Drug Administration is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government. Its origins can be traced back to the appointment of Lewis Caleb Beck in the Patent Office around 1848 to carry out chemical analyses of agricultural products, a function that the newly created Department of Agriculture inherited in 1862. Although it was not known by its present name until 1930, FDA’s modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind this law and headed its enforcement in the early years, providing basic elements of protection that consumers had never known before that time.” [emphasis added]

I find that history extremely interesting because:

1) The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted and initially enforced by the Department of Agriculture—which deals with livestock and animals.  Therefore, it’s not necessarily surprising that the original A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug act defined both “food” and “drugs” terms of “animals”.

2) Sometime in the 1930’s (probably A.D. 1933 or later), the FDA grew out of the Department of Agriculture—which naturally dealt with livestock and animals.  Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Deparatment of Agriculture’s “animal” legacy colored the FDA’s subsequent operations.

3) The A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act is neither lengthy nor complex.  The fact that it took a quarter century to be enacted might be explained by the fact that it was a big step forward in potentially unconstitutional legislation—or, it might be explained by the fact that that Act treated the people as animals and was therefore resisted by many members of Congress.  In fact, it may be that, under the Constitution, the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act could never have been applied to People.  It may be that in order to have passed that Act, the Congress had to agree that it would only be applied to “animals”—not men or woman “made in God’s image”.

4)  If it took 25 years to enact the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, that act had to have been initially proposed back about A.D. 1881.  This implies that forces were at work within the government pushing to degrade the people to the status of ANIMALS as early as A.D. 1881—just 16 years after the end of the Civil War and passage of the 13th Amendment, and 13 years after passage of the 14th Amendment and the freeing of the slaves (who had been presumed to be animals).  Thus, the forces in favor of treating the people as animals remained strong despite the 13th and 14th Amendments.  People in power have wanted to treat the people of the USA as animals, property and slaves for a long, long time.

5) If Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug act, he should be researched to discover the nature of his faith, politics and values.   Was he a Satanist? Atheist?  Associated with any globalist, one-world order, Illuminati-like groups?  What compelled him to pass a law that would degrade the American people to the status of “animals”?

6)  Most importantly, the FDA describes itself as “the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government.”  Given that the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act defined “food” and “drugs” in terms of “man or other animals,” it’s clear that that Act applied only to “animals”.  Insofar as the FDA is a “consumer protection agency,” does it follow that all “consumers” are presumed by the government to be “animals”?

I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet that’s true.

More, if the FDA is America’s “oldest consumer protection agency,” it could follow that the FDA may have been the first to establish the definition for “consumers” as “animals”.

Subsequent agencies may have adopted that definition when they sought to “protect” the “consumers”.

Implication:  It may be hazardous to your health to allow yourself to be deemed a “consumer”.

More, you might be able to resist the authority of any federal bureaucracy that claimed to be involved in “consumer protection” by arguing that such agency regulates “animals” and you can’t be one under your Christian or Jewish faith.

 
31 Comments

Posted by on December 5, 2013 in "Man or Other Animals"

 

Tags: ,

31 responses to “Consumers

  1. Cody

    December 6, 2013 at 1:27 AM

    This might provide some clues about Wiley’s philosophy. We can tell he was a crusader. He enlisted in the Union Army in 1864. That’s about the time the rallying cry to “Free the Slaves” was popularized.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley

    Also, there was this guy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Caleb_Beck

    And this woman.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Lakey

     
  2. Jetlag

    December 6, 2013 at 1:38 AM

    Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    The word “animals” does not appear here. Some translations use “wild animals”, “small animals”, “domestic animals”, or “animals” with another modifier, but man having dominion over any of these categories does not mean he isn’t an “animal” of some sort himself.

    It could be that the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 uses the English word “animal” in the sense derived from the Latin word “animalis”, meaning that which is alive, from “anima”, meaning breath or soul, which is consistent with man being made in God’s image.

    Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    “breath” = nshamah (Strong’s 5397), meaning “wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal”.

    “soul” = nephesh (Strong’s 5315), meaning “a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality”.

     
    • Martens

      December 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      Let’s take a closer look at this word “nephesh” (H5315), which Genesis 2:7 uses to refer to God-breathed man.

      Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      In both of these verses, the word translated “creature”, and referring only to animals, is “nephesh”.

      Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

      Here the last two instances of “beast” (bolded) are translated from “nephesh” in the original text.

      Genesis 9:9-10 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

      Here “creature” is translated from “nephesh” – the same word Genesis 2:7 uses for God-breathed man – in a context that refers exclusively to animals.

      So it turns out the Department of Agriculture has Biblical precedent for their use of “man and other animals”.

       
      • Adask

        December 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM

        I’d say the Department of Agriculture has Biblical precedent for the use of “man and other creatures” (where “creature” means a “creation” of God).

        But if you actually bother to read Genesis 1:26-28, it makes clear that while man and animals are both creations and therefore creatures of God, only man is made in God’s image and is therefore distinct from all of the other creatures/creations. If you read Genesis 9:6, you’ll see (if you care to) that the reason killing an animal is OK but killing a man is murder is that animals are not made in God’s image, but men are. Both man and animals are created by God. Both man and animals are “God-breathed” (God-created). But only man is made in God’s image and that makes man unique among all of God’s creations/creatures and entitles man to special rights, protections and duties that are not afforded to creatures which are not made in God’s image.

         
      • Martens

        December 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

        Adask said: “I’d say the Department of Agriculture has Biblical precedent for the use of “man and other creatures” (where “creature” means a “creation” of God).”

        You didn’t respond to my citation of Leviticus 24:18. This verse uses “nephesh” – the same word Genesis 2:7 uses in reference to man – in the sense of “beast”, which is how the KJV translates it. So we see that “man and other beasts” has Biblical precedent also.

         
    • Gary

      December 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

      Jetlag: you wrote “It could be that the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 uses the English word “animal” in the sense derived from the Latin word “animalis”, meaning that which is alive, from “anima”, meaning breath or soul, which is consistent with man being made in God’s image.”

      I disagree with your last statement “meaning breath or soul, which is consistent with man being made in God’s image.” I do not believe it is consistent at all. Why? I would say that being made in God’s image has nothing to do with body or soul. What your definitions prove is that in the beginning, God formed the body from the dust of the ground………then he made the soul (breath life)………..then with man only, he created him in God’s image.

      Q: What is it that God created in man. What is the image of God………Answer: God is holy spirit. His image is holy spirit. That which God created in man is holy spirit.

      Man and animals have two things in common, that is, they are both body and soul. The body and soul is temporal. When a man or animal dies, the body goes back to dust and the soul ( breath life as you so accurately pointed out) simply ceases to exist in that body. When it all settles, a man and an animal dies when they take their last breath. Breath life is soul life.

      I would say that a man, like an animal, starts off as just body and soul. However, when a man confesses Jesus Christ as lord, and believes that God raised him from the dead, the Word of God says he then becomes filled with the spirit of God, he receives eternal spiritual life. He is no longer just body and soul ( like an animal ) rather, he is now a three part being………body, soul, and holy spirit.

      This man, the man of body, soul, and spirit, is NOT an animal, he is God’s child.

       
  3. Pat Fields

    December 6, 2013 at 2:05 AM

    1881 falls roughly between publication of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, in 1859 and the apparent view of the Department of Agriculture in 1906, then further evenly spaced to the case of State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes of 1925 (‘Scopes Trial’).

    Now, by the legal constructions of slavery, going back to Roman culture more influential on America’s roots, we can see the practice’s function more as one of a contractual ‘Employment Assurance’ of People, rather than presumption for justification of non-human characterization in any group of them, which is evidenced by orphaned English and Irish children being sold into Bonded Apprenticeship during Colonial times. Having lineage of a Southern slave holding culture and family, I can say from oral history, that ‘our people’ were cared for and about, no differently than close friends or even blood family. Indeed, after 65 years I often recollect my ‘Mammy’, with as much fondness and tenderness as my biological ‘Mommy’.

    So, while there may well be merit to researching the sources you’re considering above, Al, you may ‘mix in’ what ‘liberties’ were assumed by government agents of that period owing to Darwin’s dissertation.

     
  4. Gary

    December 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Al: I notice that when you refer to the Department of Agriculture, you write that the department deals with livestock and animals, omitting the obvious fact that the department also deals with planting, harvest, and sale of plants (edible and otherwise). I have always pondered how the FDA and Department of Agriculture would tolerate the development GMO seeds and their resulting produce. Not only do these departments tolerate these products, they protect them. Why?

    These GMO products, protected and promoted by the FDA and Department of Agricultural, are proven to produce generational weakness, disease, and deformities in animals (and people) that eat them. ( I could have written “consume” instead of eat )

    What we are seeing is the methodical and deliberate poisoning of people and animals. How is this practice not murder? How are those politicians and other people involved in these practices exempt from conspiracy to commit murder and other awful crimes?

    Then I thought, if I own an animal or animals, like sheep for example, I can go out to them and put a bullet in their head, process them, and eat or give them away for food and not be arrested. Why, because there are no statutes ( yet ) which make killing an animal a crime.

    It is possible…no, it is a legal fact, that people ( men, women, and children) are indeed classified as nothing more than animals. The practices I mention above with the GMO could be an example further supporting the “man and other animal” argument.

    Perhaps one or more people working together could bring forth a cause of action against those involved for the damage and death caused by GMO consumption under the “animal cruelty” laws…..I wonder if remedy would be found, or if that argument would cause the “man and other animals” presumption to blow up in the lawmaker’s face?

     
    • Adask

      December 6, 2013 at 2:29 PM

      “How is this practice not murder?” Murder only occurs if you intentionally kill a man. Read Genesis 9:6 which makes clear that the killing of a man is wrong (and “murder”) because man (alone) is made in God’s image. Killing animals is OK because they are not made in God’s image.

      It’s only a “killing” (but not “murder”) if you kill an “animal”. The government’s laws that define us as animals implicitly declare that our intentional deaths be merely construed as “killings” rather than “murders”. It’s only a “murder” if the victim is a man (or woman) made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28. If the victim is defined to be an “animal” or perhaps even a “consumer,” government can end their lives with bullets or GMO foods with impunity since their deaths are only a “killing”.

       
  5. Adask

    December 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

    Martens previous complained that I didn’t answer one of his questions. Gee, how sad. What makes you think I’m obligated to even read your questions, let alone answer them? Do you presume that you’re my master and I’m your servant? I’m not.

    Further, it takes time to write the articles that I post on this blog. That time requirement conflicts with the time available to also read and respond to every comment on this blog. I can’t do both.

    But Martens commented to me that “You didn’t respond to my citation of Leviticus 24:18. This verse uses “nephesh” – the same word Genesis 2:7 uses in reference to man – in the sense of “beast”, which is how the KJV translates it. So we see that “man and other beasts” has Biblical precedent also.

    I looked up Genesis 2:7 and found, “Gen 2:7 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 formedH3335 (H853) manH120 of the dustH6083 ofH4480 the ground,H127 and breathedH5301 into his nostrilsH639 the breathH5397 of life;H2416 and manH120 becameH1961 a livingH2416 soul.H5315” (The number correspond to the Strong’s Concordence definitions for each word.)

    For “man” the Strong’s number is H120 which means:
    אדם
    ‘âdâm
    aw-dawm’
    From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): – X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

    Martens’ Bible and mine apparently disagree. I find no reference to “nephesh” in relation to the word “man” in Genesis 2:7.

    If my version of the Bible is right, Martens’ premise for the question I didn’t answer may be mistaken.

     
    • Martens

      December 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM

      Adask said, “Martens previous complained that I didn’t answer one of his questions.”

      Why would you think it was a complaint? It was merely an observation of fact, without which it could be mistakenly assumed that your lengthy comment somehow included a response to my citation of Leviticus 24:18.

      Since you looked up the wrong Strong’s number, it seems we need a bit of clarification before proceeding to whatever response, or lack thereof (it’s entirely your choice), you’re going to give to Leviticus 24:18.

      Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      “soul” = nephesh (H5315). After God breathed life into him, man became a “nephesh”, as the original text puts it.

      Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

      “beast” = nephesh (H5315)

      Therefore, the phrase “man or other animals”, as used by the Department of Agriculture, has Biblical precedent, since the Bible also uses a single word, i.e. “nephesh”, to refer to both “beast” (as the KJV translates it) and man.

       
      • Jetlag

        December 6, 2013 at 6:39 PM

        What’s more, when you look up this Hebrew word “nephesh” in the dictionary, you find its definition has much common with the Latin word “animalis” from which the English word “animal” (as in “man or other animals”) is derived.

        nephesh
        “…properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality…”

        animalis
        1. animate, living
        2. of living creatures

        @Martens

        Judging by Prof. Adask’s last comment, it looks you’re not going to get a response. The professor has more important things to do than fiddle around with blog posts all day. I suggest you not press the issue.

         
      • Pat Fields

        December 7, 2013 at 4:21 AM

        Not wishing to poke a hornet nest … has anyone looked to see if the word ‘animal’ is defined in the statute? We know that words left undefined must carry their common colloquial meaning, which I presume to equate with ‘horses’, ‘sheep’, ‘cats’ and such, as the vast majority of other people take it to mean.

         
      • Martens

        December 6, 2013 at 11:58 PM

        Jetlag,

        I learned from “Adask on Sovereignty II” that the professor reserves to right to bail out of a comment thread even though there are fundamental questions outstanding about the main article.

        That’s fine, and I support the right to do this. Posting articles on a blog carries no obligation to respond to comments.

         
  6. Anthony Clifton

    December 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM

    since there were in fact no so-called “Jews” in the Old Testament, and the fact that to be a “Jewish”
    the adherent to the teachings of the Talmud and “Non-acceptor” of Jesus,
    {as if so-called “Jews”are actually “Israelites”},must be diametrically opposed {Talmudic Judaism}
    to the Deity of the Children of Israel, and the FACT that the so-called “government”
    reformulated after the so-called “civil war” was not actually a republic with a “constitution” that
    contained the original 13th amendment, and the fact that the so-called “money junkies” were plotting in a seriously covinous manner to manifest the so-called Federal Reserve system which
    produces currency {debt based} for the global crime syndicate that has a branch office in Palestine and currently is involved in nuclear racketeering and extortion on a monumental scale that can only be properly identified as “Jewish” wherein no actual Israelites live….

    http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/TOC.htm

    perhaps a more concise understanding might be found in the words of Jesus….

    @ John 8:44.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4462288,00.html

    Knowledge doesn’t abrogate truth.

    http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2013_12_01_archive.html

    being double minded on this specific issue yields the undeniable consequences

    of BONDAGE {debt} to the Synagogue of Satan….Money Changers & Pharisees
    who have a genetic predisposition for being murderers & Liars.

     
  7. Jetlag

    December 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM

    @Pat Fields

    Though this isn’t from a statute, Black’s 1st edition, which was current when the Act was written, has this entry which actually consists of two incompatible definitions:

    ANIMAL. any animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion. In the language of the law the term includes all living creatures not human.

    Since the “language of the law” definition specifically excludes humans, the authors of the Pure Food and Drugs Act could not have been using it. If they were using it, “man or other animals” would be a nonsense phrase like “man or other vegetables”, since “animals” would inherently exclude man.

    Incidentally, “man” is defined as “a human being” in the same (1891) edition of Black’s.

    So, if the authors of the Act were using one or the other of these definitions of “animal”, it must have been the “any animate being” definition, which obviously includes man.

    The concept conveyed by this word “animate” is the component of “animal” which the authors of the Act appear to have had in mind when they wrote “man or other animals”.

     
    • Pat Fields

      December 8, 2013 at 6:06 AM

      @Jetlag

      I appreciate your contribution and effort, but Legislative Construction is abundantly restated, that words not defined for a statute carry … colloquial … meaning. If the People contemporaneous with the passage of a statute understood animals in regular usage to be cows, dogs and so on, then left unqualified, ‘or other animals’ had that meaning exclusive of dictionaries.

       
      • Jetlag

        December 8, 2013 at 7:23 AM

        @Pat Fields

        I appreciate your efforts also. We’re getting close to wrapping this up.

        Of the two definitions of “animal” in the 1891 edition of Black’s, the first definition would be the colloquial one you’re looking for: the “any animate being” definition, which includes man.

        Black’s refers to the second definition, which excludes man, as applying in the “language of the law”, meaning it’s the non-colloquial definition.

        The reason we are given both definitions for “animal”, colloquial and non-colloquial, is probably that they are somewhat inconsistent with each other.

        Anyway, it isn’t necessary to worry too much about specific definitions. The basic logic approach gets the job done much easier. It suffices to know that, whatever definition of “animal” the Act’s authors were using, it must have included man because the phrase “man or other animals” makes no sense otherwise.

         
    • palani

      December 9, 2013 at 6:56 AM

      @ Jetlag “Incidentally, “man” is defined as “a human being” in the same (1891) edition of Black’s.”

      Human is ‘not man’ so ‘a human being’ becomes ‘a not man being’ which would appear to be inappropriate in a definition of ‘man’. After all if you include the set of all things ‘not man’ in the set of things defined as man then you have included everything in the universe.

      I derive the not man concept of human from the ‘hu’ prefix. For an analogy look at female. The root of female is male and a female is obviously not a male. Any prefix added to a root word has the effect of saying what I am describing is NOT the root but could be construed to be SIMILAR to the root. A female is similar to a male. A human is similar to a man.

       
      • Jetlag

        December 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        @palani

        Your argument is logical but based on an incorrect premise. “Human” is not “hu” + “man”.

        “Human” comes from the Latin “humanus” which is derived from “homo”, meaning man. Latin does not use a root word “man”.

        The English word “man” comes from the Germanic languages.

        English has a lot of twins like that. One word (e.g. “human”) from the Roman Empire which included Britain, the other word (e.g. “man”) from the Anglo-Saxon barbarians, or “illegal aliens”, who moved in and took over as the once-great empire lost the will to maintain its borders.

         
      • Adask

        December 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        At least one dictionary–I think it was Ballentines’–defined “human” as “monster”. By “monster” they meant part man and part animal. But regardless of whatever definition might be attached to “human” why not stick with “man” as found in Genesis 1:26-28 (“let us make man in our image”) or the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”)? Why screw around with other words that may or may not have the same spiritual and legal strength as “man”?

         
      • Jetlag

        December 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM

        @Adask

        The word “man” is not found in Genesis 1:26-28. The presence of this word is due to the translators. The inspired authors of the Bible did not write in English.

        The word found in Genesis 1:26-28 is “adam” (H120), which means “ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)”.

        Regarding the Declaration of Independence, it begins:

        “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

        I don’t think the Founders considered the people of the united States – the same people whose unalienable rights the Declaration is defending – to be “monsters”.

         
      • palani

        December 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

        @ Jetlag “English has a lot of twins like that. One word (e.g. “human”) from the Roman Empire which included Britain, the other word (e.g. “man”) from the Anglo-Saxon barbarians, or “illegal aliens”, who moved in and took over as the once-great empire lost the will to maintain its borders.”

        Actually I believe the use of multiple symbols (such as Man or Human) act to place the subject in a different plane. To illustrate this I would direct you to A Treatise on the Laws of the Forrest by Manwood. While this seems way off topic bear with me a bit.

        The Law of the Forrest was enacted right alongside the Magna Charta and Manwood does a decent job describing what a forrest actually is compared to a chase or a warren. Seems that Harts are one of the animals you will find in a forrest while a Buck occupies a chase. What is the difference between a Hart and a Buck? Well a king or queen might hunt a Hart but not a Buck. If in the hunt the Hart gets away then it becomes a Hart Royale and if the king decides he wants to lure the animal back into his forrest he puts out a ‘hands off’ proclamation and the animal becomes a Hart Royal Proclaimed.

        A forrest and a chase to a causal passerby are identical in appearance but a forrest has metes and bounds, officers and a court which the chase is lacking. A Hart and a Buck are identical but yet the distinction between these symbols says it all. They are in separate distinct planes of existence. And so with man or human. You admit to being human and you leave behind all the accoutrements associated with man.

         
    • Adask

      January 4, 2015 at 11:17 AM

      Izzat you, Ray, Phil, Ray and Friends, Legion?

       
  8. Cody

    December 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM

    In 1874 Mary Ellen Wilson was “rescued” from her abusive caretakers pursuant to the authority of a New York, an animal cruelty prevention law…

     
  9. Peter

    December 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    499.006 Adulterated drug or device.—A drug or device is adulterated:
    (1) If it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance;

    (2) If it has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under conditions whereby it could have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health

    This is FLORIDA STATUTE 499.006 , It is a perfect description of a vaccine .

     
  10. Peter

    December 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM

    Would a required “drug” test procedure at a place of employment be a violation of Freedom of Religion, Freedom from the establishment of religion and an act of genocide, something to be in objection to in the form of a written Notice? I have considered writing something similar to Man or other Animals 3 for my employer, any drug test procedure may be construed as an act of genocide.

     
  11. Bobby G

    May 11, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. § 136 [FIFRA §2] under the heading “Definitions” states “(d) the term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.

    What better proof do we need to demonstrate the federal laws define us as animals? Many states have adopted the federal laws (Title 21) so, therefore, all state and federal laws only apply to animals. This could work as a defense against ALL laws. If the PA can prove you are an animal without violating your first amendment protection to religion…. the charge must be dropped on it’s face for lack of standing!

     
  12. Bobby G

    June 8, 2014 at 12:24 PM

    A flesh and blood Christian is not subject to any drug law, because a Christian is not a “person”.

    The word “person” as used in every statute pertaining to federal and state drug laws can only apply to either animals, or a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers.

    The definition of a “drug” is given in the United States Code Title 21, subchapter 321 (C) as follows:

    The term ‘‘drug’’ means … (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals;

    When it comes to drugs, the government presumes man (a human) to be an animal by writing into law the term “man or other animals” The word “other” means different. Therefore, the term “man or other animals” means man and different animals. If man was not considered an animal, the law would have been written as man or animals, which shows man different from the classification of animals.

    Additional proof that government recognizes man (i.e. humans) as being an animal is written in the United States Code at Act 7 which defines an animal as follows:

    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 7 U.S.C. §136-136y
    §136. [FIFRA §2]
    Definitions
    For purposes of this subchapter
    (d) Animal
    The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals…”

    The government recognizes an animal as being a man, which is also a Mammal. A mammal is a type of animal that has hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands in females.

    If a human being is presumed to be an animal, then an animal is a “person”? The legal definition of person, according to BLACK’S Law dictionary is as follows: “Person. Generally speaking, a human being, though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations,legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers.”

    If a human being is an animal and a human being is a person, then the “person” in the statute must indicate either an animal. Or one of the other nine (9) entities which includes a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers.

    The Christian religion teaches that man is NOT an animal, because Gen 1:26-28 teaches that man was created in God’s image and was given dominion over animals. Therefore, a Christian who believes in the creation theory, cannot be a “person”. As far as a Christian and Jew are concerned, the drug laws are based on a false presumption of the definition of “drug”.

     
    • EarlatOregon

      June 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM

      God did Not create Humans.

      God created Man and Woman.

      Man and Woman are people.

      God created people,
      Not humans.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s