The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico – then diverted to violent cartels – is becoming more urgent. That’s because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through “direct commercial sales.” It’s a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here’s how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn’t give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

Further down the article comes this intriguing quote:

“These sales by the industry actually support U.S. national security interests,” Keane told Attkisson. “If they didn’t, the State Department wouldn’t allow them.”

Larry Keane, interestingly enough, is a lobbyist for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and he’s advocating for and speaking on behalf of gun sales to foreign countries brokered by the U.S. government.

According to Investors.com, emails that were obtained by CSB show that “ATF officials discussed using the deliberate transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify a new gun regulation known as “Demand Letter 3.’” Remember that shortly after Obama was elected, his administration, led by gun control pusher Rahm Emanuel, started circulating the falsehoods about the “problem” of illegal guns being funneled to Mexico to fuel the drug violence [See this propaganda piece, "GAO Ties US Guns to Mexico Violence," in the June 18, 2009 WSJ].

Despite the incomplete data, GAO investigators conclude that the U.S., and in particular the Southwest border states of Texas, California and Arizona, are the source of most weapons trafficked into Mexico.

I blogged about it here. That was the beginning of another new chapter in the war on peaceful American gun owners. The U.S. government pushes drugs across the border, strategically sells guns to the military {gangs}, creates and exacerbates the violence, and then it uses and magnifies the crisis it has created as a tool for pushing its anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda here in the United States.

Shopper stress was linked more to line length than concerns about missing out on deals.

“The data shows the highest stress level occurred while shoppers were waiting for the store to open,” Ross said. “Once the store was open, shoppers were really happy — until they had to wait in the checkout line.

The masses of trained monkeys are surely well-suited to becoming devoted slaves with their priorities in good order. After all, why should the corn-fed subjects be concerned with such minuscule tidbits such as detainment in military prisons without charges or trial?

What a nation of zombie idiots.

In 2008, I had blogged about a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that declared it unconstitutional to prohibit out-of-state retailers from selling wine to Michigan consumers. In October 2008, The Wine Spectator ran a nice piece explaining the history of the fight over wine shipping in Michigan, and the overall implications of the ruling. Immediately, wine anarchy (or rather, the lack of totalitarian laws) ensued, and I was able to receive shipments from online retailers such as Wine.com.

“We’re already serving Michigan customers,” said Wine.com CEO Rich Bergsund after the ruling was handed down. That Michigan residents can now legally receive wine shipments from out-of-state retailers is “absolutely our interpretation [of the ruling]. This is a federal court finding that it’s unconstitutional to treat outside retailers differently from in-state retailers on direct shipping,” he said. (Wine.com is one of the few online retailers that does set up a brick-and-mortar warehouse in many of the states to which it ships, though it did not ship to Michigan residents prior to the Sept. 30 ruling.)

Shortly thereafter, Governor Granholm, whose political coffers were being filled by such powerful lobbies as the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, immediately signed a law prohibiting out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to consumers, and the law specifically banned UPS and FedEx, and other third-party delivery services, from shipping this wine. Online sellers, such as Wine.com, immediately discontinued doing business with Michigan residents. Wine.com writes that:

States have been mixed on the issue of direct shipping of wine to consumers by retailers. While 30 states currently allow out-of-state wineries to ship to their residents, only 15 states allow the same from out-of-state retailers. Wine.com ships to 80% of the U.S. population by maintaining a network of licensed, in-state stores in order to comply with state laws. But in Michigan, not even an in-state store would help, because the company uses UPS and FedEx to deliver its wine.

The reason is always the same – the laws are to protect the poor children who would be victimized by free trade in wine.

“if hundreds of thousands of unregulated out-of-state retailers are permitted to ship beer and wine to Michigan residents, there’s a likelihood that alcohol will be delivered to underage customers.”
Ken Wozniak, Director of Executive Services, Michigan Liquor control commission.

This is in spite of the fact that shippers require an adult to be present and sign for the package.

Back in October 2010, I went to Pasa Robles, California and had a chance to visit one of my favorite wineries for the first time – Four Vines Winery. Prior to my visit, I had blogged about the origin of its Anarchy wine. Four Vines also makes a fantastic Heretic wine (Petite Sirah), as well as a wine called Monarchy, a Petite Verdot, Malbec, and Tempranillo blend. Things have changed, recently, with a change of ownership to Cypher Winery, but still, the winery makes the same terrific wine. So last fall, I joined the winery’s wine club.

Just a few weeks ago, I cancelled my wine membership with Four Vines, now Cypher Winery, and of course, the folks selling the wine wanted to know why they are losing a customer. My first reason is that it is just too expensive with shipping costs. I can buy it for much less locally because I am right near the #1 wine retailer in Michigan – Champane’s in Warren – where the prices are amazingly low and I am buds with the wine buyer. In my return email to the winery, I noted that I will continue to buy the wine, especially the Anarchy wine (I now have Butler Shaffer hooked on this, by the way).

But mostly, I noted in my email that it is too frustrating for one who works a lot of hours to receive wine via shipment. Because an adult signature is required, and because no one is ever home when they try to ship, we (me and UPS) play cat-and-mouse until I call and arrange to have the package kept at the depot, then I have to wait until a Saturday to make the long drive to pick it up at the depot. Funny how I can order all the liquid sugar in a bottle, donuts, chips, onions rings, and processed chemicals-in-a-box that I want (if I wanted) and eat it all in public on a street corner, but I am stigmatized and harassed and taxed and impeded from buying a fresh, made-from-nature, healthy, and fermented beverage to enjoy in the privacy of my own home. By requiring signatures, the government nannies and their prohibition state make it far too difficult for one to order wine. So I am no longer getting any wine club memberships. And this is exactly what I told the winery was my main reason for cutting off their quarterly deliveries.

As usual, our totalitarian government/regulatory state is so beneficial for the business environment.

The stand is too large, confirmed Tom Hammel, the city’s deputy chief licence inspector. He said Smith shares his vending licence with the corner grocer, and can only sell a volume of produce that matches what the shop owner could stock and sell.

“He could stay at that location,” Hammel said, “if he’s willing to scale it back.”

Always – governments of the people, by the people, for the people…

[Update, due to the two confused folks who wrote me: I'm making the point that all government is the same, and Canada does not have more freedom than the U.S.; not quoting Lincoln.]

Based on claims made on your firm’s website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

This part of the FDA letter is predictably curious:

The back of your product label also bears the following statement: “The omega-3 in walnuts can help you get the proper balance of fatty acids your body needs for promoting and maintaining heart health. In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration, supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 oz of walnuts per day, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet, and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Please refer to nutrition information for fat content and other details about the nutritional profile of walnuts.” Although FDA exercises enforcement discretion over the last two sentences of this statement, which meet the criteria for a qualified health claim for walnuts and coronary heart disease, the last two sentences read in conjunction with the first sentence makes the entire statement an unauthorized health claim.

An article by William Faloon in Life Extension magazine (he’s a co-founder of the foundation) points out that “the FDA has no problem allowing the Frito-Lay® website to state the following” about its “heart healthy” snacks:

“Frito-Lay® snacks start with real farm-grown ingredients. You might be surprised at how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack. Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one of the world’s most popular grains, packed with thiamin, vitamin B6, and phosphorous—all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles.

“And it’s not just the obvious ingredients. Our all-natural sunflower, corn and soybean oils contain good polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower total and LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol and maintain HDL ‘good’ cholesterol levels, which can support a healthy heart. Even salt, when eaten in moderation as part of a balanced diet, is essential for the body.”

You can see it for yourself on the Frito-Lay website. (Thanks to Mickey Propadovich for the tip.) A few years ago, the Life Extension foundation covered the FDA’s attack on the cherry industry for stating that the fruit contained beneficial anti-oxidants. Twenty-nine companies were ordered by the FDA to stop making health claims regarding their cherries, otherwise the FDA would designate their cherries as drugs, meaning the FDA would have to raid the warehouses and seize the “untested drugs.” Meanwhile, the FDA has allowed General Mills to put this on its boxes of processed carbohydrate-sodium mix (known as Cheerios):

Fluorescent lights also carry their own environmental risks because they contain small amounts of mercury and other toxic materials. The EPA website contains three pages of consumer directions about what to do if you break a CFL bulb in your home: “Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off the central heating and air conditioning system. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with a metal lid.”

Congressman Ted Poe of Texas has poked fun at these EPA guidelines by holding up a fluorescent bulb on the House floor asking: “If I dropped this, would we all have to evacuate the Capitol?” If fluorescent bulbs weren’t all the rage among greens, the Consumer Product Safety Commission might ban them as a home health hazard. The question an (allegedly) free society should ask is if CFL bulbs are so clearly superior, why does the government have to force people to buy them?

And folks – please don’t write me and tell me that incandescent bulbs haven’t been banned. The law, indeed, is “technology neutral” in that it sets particular standards for bulbs that cannot be met with traditional incandescent technology. However, is it so difficult to see that when government sets impossible standards to meet that will result in the phase-out (manufacturing and importing) of current products in favor of newer products that benefit certain manufacturers, industries, and special interests, this is a totalitarian, lifestyle decree in the same vein as a full-force, explicit ban on the product? Why is implicitly peddled “soft fascism” somehow kindler and gentler than explicit, acknowledged totalitarian decrees? You can put all of the Chanel No. 5 that you want on a pile of cowplop, but beneath the perfumed surface lies the very same pile of putrid dung.

Federal authorities have seized bottles and drums of elderberry juice concentrate from a Kansas winery, contending that the company’s claims of its benefits for treating various diseases make the product a drug.

…”Products with unapproved disease claims are dangerous because they may cause consumers to delay or avoid legitimate treatments, Dara Corrigan, the FDA’s associate commissioner for regulatory affairs, said in a news release. “The FDA is committed to protecting consumers from unapproved products on the market.”

The story says that Wyldewood Cellars owner John Brewer, who had been threatened and bullied by the FDA starting in 2006, had the wine labels changed, as originally ordered by the FDA, so that the labels did not reflect any health benefits. Yet U.S. Marshalls seized products from the winery because they discovered during “subsequent inspections that the company continues to make such claims.” So it is not clear exactly what has transpired here, except that the government has once again gone to war against a little guy while they continue to make deals with Big Food producers to ignore the lies contained within their advertising because their claims conform to the tenets of sanctioned, conventional wisdom.

The FDA has no problems with its favored food giants such as General Mills claiming that their sugar products – masquerading as a breakfast food (Cheerios) – “lower your cholesterol.” And sugar in a cup – sold by Dannon as “yogurt” (which it is not) – can be sold as a product that is good for your immune system.

But remember – the FDA has been communicating that it will start grading food claims so that the Stupidus Americanus consumers will be provided “with information in a recognizable way so that they are informed about what it is they are buying.” This incredible dumbing-down approach caters to the short-attention-span, sound-bite imbecile:

Under the new plan, an “A” grade will be assigned to claims supported by many well-designed studies. For instance, if a food high in fiber boasts the ability to one’s reduce risk of colon cancer, the claim will be given an “A” since the link between fiber and gastrointestinal cancers has been well established by scientific research.

Health claims with “good” but not entirely “conclusive” supporting evidence will be assigned a “B” designation. Label statements made with little or no conclusive evidence to back them up will fall into “C” and “D” categories.

Essentially, the government will give out “health claim report cards,” and those companies that conform to conventional wisdom as determined by the medical-pharmaceutical-congressional complex will get big fat A grades, and any claims that go against the grain of the established dogma will be sure to garner poor grades that persuade consumers that the product is not worthy because it doesn’t have the establishment’s seal of approval. And when a product has no value whatsoever to the establishment, such as elderberry wine, the government will just seize the product (is that like getting an “F”?) – essentially kicking it out of school without a hearing.