If you’ve read my previous articles on “Man or other Animals” (“MOOA”), you know that Genesis 1:26-28 declares:
“Gen 1:26 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.
“Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
“Gen 1:28 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.”
Given the repetition found in those three verses, there can be no doubt that God created man (mankind) and only mankind in His image and gave man “dominion” over all animals.
Thus, under the Jewish and Christian faiths, every “man” is absolutely distinguished from all “animals” by two facts: 1) man, and only man, is made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image; and 2) man alone is given dominion over all the animals.
Therefore, a Jew or a Christian can’t be declared to be an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of his faith.
• If you visit Section 321 of Title 21 of the United States Code (21 USC 321) you’ll find the current federal definitions of “food,” “drug[s]” and [medical] “device[s]”:
(f) The term “food” means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.
(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). . . .
(h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 331(i), 343(f), 352(c), and 362(c) of this title) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is – (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them, (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.
The statements “horses or other animals” and “cows or other animals” make sense in that they convey the idea that a horse or cow is just one variety of many other “animals”.
If I wrote “horses or animals” (or “cows or animals”) the statement would not make sense because would mean that horses or cows were not animals.
The addition of the word “other” in “horses or other animals” makes clear that the specific subject (“horses”) is one kind of the larger category called “animals”.
Similarly, if the government had simply written “man or animals” in 21 USC 321, it would mean that they viewed “man” and “animals” as two distinctively-different, and mutually-exclusive classes of beings. I.e, no “man” could also be an “animal” and no “animal” could also be a “man”.
However, the grammar of the phrase “man or other animals” that government actually uses at 21 USC 321 means that man is deemed to be just one of an innumerable variety of “other animals”.
Thus, the federal definitions of “drugs,” “food” and (medical) “devises” presume man to be an “animal” rather than a “man made in God’s image” who is given “dominion over the animals” as per Genesis 1:26-28.
Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our Freedom of Religion, there’s a First Amendment basis for resisting any federal law that relies on the government’s definitions of “food,” “drugs” and (medical) “devices” found at 21 USC 321. I.e., the government can’t lawfully subject any Christian or Jew to any law that presumes the Christian or Jew to be an “animal” without violating the Freedom of Religion of that Christian or Jew.
• Insofar as 1) the laws of your “state” parallel federal laws and also define the words “food,” “drugs” and/or (medical) “devices” as applying to “animals” rather than men made in God’s image who are given dominion over “animals”; and 2) insofar as your “state’s” constitution includes a guarantee of Freedom of Religion; then 3) your right of religious freedom at the “state” level is guaranteed against state-legislation that presumes you to be an “animal”.
• 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.”
Note that the primary objective and purpose for the Food and Drug Administration appears to be the protection of “consumers”.
Note that if the FDA is “the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government,” it may follow that all subsequent “consumer protection agencies” are based on the same definition of “consumer” as is found in the FDA.
Note that the current Food and Drug Administration (which is based on definitions of “food” and “drugs” found at 21 USC 321 that presume man to be an “animal”) was originally derived from the Department of Agriculture—which had to be designed to deal with farm products including domesticated “animals”. Therefore, it’s not so surprising that the FDA began with a focus on “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image” who were given “dominion” over all animals.
Note also that the Department of Agriculture was established by Abraham Lincoln in A.D. 1862 during the Civil War under what may have been deemed a state of national emergency.
The “history” of the FDA continues:
“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.” [emphasis added]
In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia. It lasted four months. It produced the Preamble and first seven articles of what became The Constitution of the United States. That Preamble and first seven articles orignally included about 4,501 words.
The A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act included thirteen sections and just 2,911 words. (I frequently post articles on this blog that over 2,911 words. This article is about 2,200 words) Why do you suppose it took only four months to draft the body of the Constitution, but it took a “quarter-century” to draft the 2,911-word, A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act?
Is it possible that there’s some enormous power in that Pure Food and Drug Act? Is it possible that it took a “quarter-century” to find the words to both include that power and also conceal that power from the American people? Is it possible that the introduction of the word “other” in “man or other animals” is key to that power?
Is it possible that it took a “quarter-century” to find a Congress that was sufficiently ignorant, greedy or treasonous pass the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and thereby degrade the American people from the exalted status of “men made in God’s image” to the lowly status of “animals”?
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 and/or slaves have remained strong within our government despite the 13th and 14th Amendments. Those in power have wanted to treat the people of The United States of America as animals, property and slaves for a long, long time.
And virtually no one has recognized this treason for over 130 years.
• Note that Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act reads as follows:
“That the term ‘drug,’ as used in this Act, shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals. The term ‘food,’ as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.” [emphasis added]
So far as I’ve been able to learn, Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was the first law that expressly defined both “food” and “drugs” with the phrase “man or other animals” and thereby presumed all men and women subject to that law to be “animals”.
That law has now been in effect for 108 years. Thus, for over a century, your government has presumed you, your parents, your spouse, children and grandchildren to be “animals”.
As “animals” you have no more intrinsic rights than a chicken on a Tyson poultry-processing plant. The only thing that really distinguishes you from the “other animals” is the fact that lots of you (unlike cow, pigs, or deer) own firearms that might be used to kill your government “masters”. Government, of course, is working day and night to persuade you to surrender your firearms—supposedly for “public safety,” but in fact, for the safety of a treasonous government.
If your government presumes you to be an animal, you got nuthin’. You have no meaningful rights, no hope of prosperity or liberty. No hope for your children’s futures. You are nothing but “human resources” to be grown and cultivated like any other domestic animal for the benefit of your “masters”. As an “animal,” you can be used, controlled, and ultimately consumed or disposed of like a cow in a slaughter-house.
The “history” of the FDA continues:
“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]
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 motivated Mr. Wiley to push for a law that would degrade the American people to the status of “animals”?
• 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 (yet) prove it, but I’ll bet that’s true.
And, again, 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”.
Therefore, subsequent “consumer protection agencies” may have adopted that same definition when they sought to “protect” the “consumers”.
Implication: It may be hazardous to your health to allow yourself to be presumed to be, or defined as, a “consumer”.
How do you defeat that presumption?
You deny under oath that you are a “consumer” or another other variety of “animal” and you expressly declare yourself to be a “man made in the image of God” and given “dominion” over the “animals” by your faith as found in Genesis 1:26-28. Back those claims with the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) and the First Amendment’s protection of your Freedom of Religion—and you may have a powerful argument against personal liability for any law that defines the words “drug,” “food” or (medical) “devices” in terms of “man or other animals”.
You might thereby 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 the Christian or Jewish faiths.