Monday, April 6, 2015

Keep Environmental Agenda Out Of Our Dietary Guidelines -- We Love Beef!

If Environmentalists are successful, Americans will not be aware of the information above regarding health benefits of beef.

Thankfully we have Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill who are pushing back on proposed USDA dietary guidelines they say wrongly downplay the benefits of lean red meat to advance an Environmental agenda.

Rather than promoting healthy choices based on “sound nutritional science,” new dietary guidelines have more to do with Liberal politics than good health.

Seventy-one House lawmakers sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell expressing their disappointment over a recent report issued by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 

They said the report exceeded its scope in developing the recommendations.

“It is extremely difficult to reverse or change public policy, once enacted, without causing consumer confusion,” the letter states. 

“Inaccurate and conflicting dietary guidance messages are detrimental to consumer understanding of nutrition and the ability to build healthy diets.”

The USDA and HHS will use the DGA advisory committee’s report to write the final version of the 2015 dietary guidelines, expected by the end of the year.

Arguments over the guidelines have been growing on Capitol Hill, with the cattle and agriculture industries arguing that an Environmental agenda has no place in a government blueprint for healthier living.

The advisory committee has discussed sustainability as a good dietary goal, saying in its draft recommendations that there is “compatibility and overlap” between what is good for health and what is good for the environment. 

No kidding. Liberal political causes such as the environment are now intruding into how food is grown, cattle are raise, and what we are being told we should and should not eat.

It said that a diet higher in nuts and greens and lower in animal-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.” 

Current guidelines push lean meats as a healthy source of protein. 

The advisory panel, though, has debated whether lean meats should be included at all. 

The draft recommendations question whether a healthy dietary pattern includes fewer “red and processed” meats.

The lawmakers behind the letter argue that the guidelines play a critical role for federal nutritional policy development and is the scientific basis for education and outreach. 

Therefore, they say, it is essential that they “be based on sound nutrition science and not stray into other areas outside of this specific discipline.”

“I am asking the same question thousands of school kids in North Dakota and across America will be asking: ‘Where’s the Beef? Sacrificing sound science and denying the nutritional benefits of lean red meat to satisfy an extreme environmental agenda is woefully misguided,” Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in a written statement.

The March 31 letter states: “We are disappointed with reports from observers that the approach of the 2015 DGAC suggests studies were either selected or excluded to support pre-determined conclusions.” 

How Can Environmental Groups Fund So Many Democrats With Millions of $$$$?
Not surprising, more than 100 Environmental groups which donate heavily to Democrats, groups like Natural Resources Defense Council  and the Sierra Club, have come out in support of the recommendations. 

Environmentalist Groups own the White House. Environmentalist Groups own Democrats in Congress. These groups put out millions of dollars to get Democrats elected and re-elected.

They own the Democrat Party and now they want what was promised them by the Democrats.

There have been ads purchased in daily newspapers that feature an open letter urging Burwell and Vilsack to adopt the changes.

“What we are seeing with the Dietary Guidelines is a rare consensus between the environmental, public health and nutrition communities,” Rhea Suh, said president of the ultra-liberal Natural Resources Defense Council in a written statement.

Of course the question should be, Why does there need to be a "consensus between the environmental, public health and nutrition communities" pertaining to our dietary guidelines?

What do Environmental Groups and their agenda have to do with our dietary guidelines in the first place?

Friends, this is the bigger issue here, there should not be a consensus because the Environmentalists should not be part of the discussion when it comes to our dietary concerns.

Their input is irrelevant.

The problem is that Environmentalists own every level of the Obama administration. 

The State Department has declared that Climate Change which we will feel the impact of in 1000 years is more important than the threat of terror.

The Department of Education, the USDA, the EPA, Homeland Security, they are all on-board to support Environmental causes. 

Why not, while the Democrats scream bloody murder about the contributions of the Koch brothers, they conveniently never mention the contributions of their Billionaires and their Big Money Environmentalist Groups.

In a report last year, July 2014, the Washington Examiner asked the question, "Are Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club three of the richest bullies on the block?"

The Sierra Club $413 Million

The Sierra Club received 2,038 grants since 1999, worth a total of $413 million.

President Obama's anti-carbon emissions program is a classic illustration of how liberal elites shape federal regulatory policies.

The New York Times on posted a revealing story last year that described in detail how two lawyers and a climate-scientist-turned-lobbyist at the Natural Resources Defense Council crafted a 110-page proposal that was Obama's "blueprint."

The New York Times described it as "a remarkable victory" for NRDC, which "has a reach that extends from the big donors of Wall Street to the elite of Hollywood (Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert Redford are on its board) to the far corners of the Environmental Protection Agency ..."

Friends, that's ownership of politicians big time!

NRDC's $289 Million

The New York City-based NRDC is just one of many huge Big Green environmental groups, yet just in the past 15 years, it has received more than 4,000 grants from wealthy foundations worth more than $289 million, for an average of $19 million annually, according to Foundation Search.

That compares to the $3 million spent by the Koch Industries PAC in 2012, its biggest year since 1990, according to

But wealthy foundations aren't NRDC's only income source. 

According to the group's 2012 IRS 990 tax return, it received more than $92 million in total contributions that year. The group's net assets are worth $183 million.

Rockefeller loves NRDC

Even a cursory look at the NRDC's lengthy list of grants from philanthropies — many originated by immensely wealthy men like John D. Rockefeller — reveals a laundry list of such groups.

The Rockefeller Foundation has given NRDC 18 grants since 2003 worth a total of $3.1 million. 

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has made 12 such grants since 1999, worth a total $1.4 million.

The Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors has given NRDC a dozen grants since 2003, worth a total of $615,500. 

The Rockefeller Family Fund has given NRDC three grants since 2008, for a total of $350,000.

But wait, there's always more!

By comparison, the Ford Foundation is a piker, having given NRDC only three grants since 2003 worth a measly $224,331.

Not to worry, though, because NRDC has lots of other wealthy charitable patrons, including the Annenberg Foundation, which since 2003 has given the group seven grants worth $1.3 million.

And if things ever get really tight for NRDC, there's always the Tides Foundation — the original "dark money" treasure chest for liberal political activists — which since 1999 has given 38 grants worth $2.7 million.

The NRDC shaped Obama's anti-carbon program -- which will cost millions of jobs and cripple U.S. economic growth -- but it's far from the wealthiest, or most powerful Big Green group.

The Sierra Club, for example, received 2,038 grants since 1999, worth a total of $413 million. 

The Environmental Defense Fund has gotten 1,491 grants worth more than $294 million over the same period.

In other words, just these three Big Green groups have received $996 million since 1999 — call it $1 billion for short — from wealthy foundations.

Compare that to the mere $17.8 million raised by the Koch Industries PAC in its entire history, funds that were solicited out of concern for a wide variety of issues, not merely those of the environment.

The question the Washington Examiner asked last year is still relevant, so "now who are the rich bullies on the block?"

Because Environmentalist Groups own the Democrat Party, especially those Democrats in Washington DC, they can steer the agenda and downplay sound scientific data to deny Americans the nutritional benefits of lean red meat.

This is all part of their agenda to rid America of beef.

Why? Well, Environmentalist Groups see the cattle industry as the enemy because they believe cattle hurt the land and environment.

As crazy as that sounds, they are determined and financially able to get their way in depriving Americans of beef and putting cattle producers out of business.

And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa

1 comment:

  1. I've got a funny story I wanna tell ya when it comes to beef. It's called, "Lee Van Beef Gets Into A Fight". Once upon a time, there was a bull by the name of Lee Van Beef. (Clever I know, but that's because his owner, Barnaby Smith, named him after his favorite Western actor, Lee Van Cleef). But anyway, Lee Van Beef was raised on a ranch by Barnaby Smith and his wife, Molina. One day, Lee decides he will go to a bar and get drunk. (I won't say what type of bar, but it's a bar). While he's there, this guy starts lookin' at him. And that's when Lee gets to thinkin'. "Now, I don't have a problem with gay people. But right now, this dude is checkin' me out and I wanna KNOCK him out!" (For those of you that think this is homophobia, you can go to Hell). But anyway, this guy comes on to Lee. And he's wearing a shirt with a four-leaf clover on it. Mind you, the shirt is white so if Lee gets blood on it, it's ruined. The guy suddenly says, "Hey there, buddy, you a longhorn?" Lee says, "I ain't nothin' to you". The guy says, "Don't be like that, I can be really nice if you let me." Lee says, "I'm seein' somebody." The guy says, "Who?" Lee says, "None of your business." The guy says, "I think you're bein' rude." Lee says, "And I think you're bein' a creep." Not that there's a problem with another dude checking you out. But Lee thought the guy was being a little TOO friendly. So Lee Van Beef gets ready to leave and the guy smashes a bottle and says, "Ya got two choices, you pathetic bovine sumbitch! You can either apologize or I'm gonna grill your hide." Lee says, "I ain't sorry for bein' right about you." The guy says, "Say you're sorry or I'll turn you into a rug!" The bartender says, "Now, now, Ed, he ain't hurtin' nobody." But Ed says, "Last chance, bull." Lee Van Beef says, "No." Ed says, "You really are stubborn." Lee says, "Why don't you meat me outside?" Ed says, "You think a cow joke is gonna scare me?" Lee Van Beef says, "No, but this will." And he throws a punch as big as Texas. Ed flies over the bar, slides down a vending machine, and lands flat on his ass. Lee Van Beef then looks over at Ed and says, "How now, brown cow?" Then, all of a sudden, Ed's friends pick him up off the floor and say, "Hey, you really got yer ass kicked this time!" Ed says, "I didn't want no beef with him." But folks, that just goes to show ya. You should never fight a bull named Lee Van Beef. Cause when you mess with the bull, you always, for some strange and stupid reason, get the horns. Haha. Okay, I'm done now.


Thank you for your comment.