Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Illegal to Grow Own Food

Congress is about to make it illegal to grow your own food, or for "any farm" not to purchase and use government mandated chemicals, additives, and pesticides on all food consumed in the United States. Violations are subject to a fine of up to $1,000,000/day.



UPDATE: Due to a large amount of interest in this post, I got some legal clarification. The bill says it applies to "any food establishment" or "any farm."

Clarification on "food establishment." These are described in the Definitions section of the bill. Description (8) expands the bill to cover "a food establishment that processes all other categories of food products not described." The bill covers almost anything an interpreter wants it to cover.

Clarification on "any farm." A farm is legally defined in the U.S. as "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally could have been sold during the census year." The use of the word "any" in front of farm eliminates the financial test.

Clarification on fines. Up to $1,000,000 per day. All penalties are final unless you file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals within 30 days of each citation and simultaneously serve a copy by certified mail to "the Administrator."

All judicial reviews shall be decided in favor of the Administrator unless citations are found to be "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." In other words, you are liable unless you (1) file in the proper US Court of Appeals and simultaneously notify the Administrator for each citation within a 30 day time limit, and (2) you present "substantial evidence" that the Administrator's claims are unsupported as a whole for each citation. Multiple fines are limited to $1,000,000/day.

As a side note, the Legislative branch cannot declare itself a conditional winner of Due Process challenges in advance, as that is a direct violation of Due Process itself. Due Process guarantees U.S. citizens that the Legislature alone cannot restrict Judges from affecting the result of matters concerning the confiscation of life, liberty, or property. But that is the quality of thinking you get from a woefully undereducated U.S. congress.



HR 875
Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

(sponsored by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto)

(my comments in red)

SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--

(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe;

(growing an organic tomato in your backyard is now illegal)

(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce;

(as is transporting your organic food to another state)

(3) for a food establishment or foreign food establishment to fail to register under section 202, or to operate without a valid registration;

(you are prohibited from growing a tomato in your backyard without purchasing a license then submitting to the following:)

(4) to refuse to permit access to a food establishment or food production facility for the inspection and copying of a record as required under sections 205(f) and 206(a);

(growing a tomato in your backyard without regular government inspections and the purchase and use of mandated chemicals and pesticides from government-approved suppliers)

(5) to fail to establish or maintain any record or to make any report as required under sections 205(f) and 206(b);

(failing to document compliance for all food you produce)

(6) to refuse to permit entry to or inspection of a food establishment as required under section 205;

(growing a tomato without submitting to search and seizure of your personal property)

(7) to fail to provide to the Administrator the results of testing or sampling of food, equipment, or material in contact with food, that is positive for any contaminant under section 205(f)(1)(B);

(growing a tomato without submitting samples to the government to test for mandated additives)

(8) to fail to comply with a provision, regulation, or order of the Administrator under section 202, 203, 204, 206, or 208;

(failure to do whatever you are told)

(9) to slaughter an animal that is capable for use in whole or in part as human food at a food establishment processing any food for commerce, except in compliance with the food safety law;

(same applies to farm animals)

(10) to transfer food in violation of an administrative detention order under section 402 or to remove or alter a required mark or label identifying the food as detained;

(failure to comply with any arbitrary restrictions placed on organically grown food)

(11) to fail to comply with a recall or other order under section 403; or

(12) to otherwise violate the food safety law.

(any reason the government wants to jail or fine you)

98 comments:

  1. The gall of these people knows no bounds. I really hope we don't wind up like Argentina where they can grow enough food to feed their people but the government instead sells it on the international market because there's no profit in feeding their own. Revolution anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am afraid that a revolution is coming. It has become clear that the current Coup is aimed at discarding the U.S. Constitution as written, to maximize private profits of our congress members, their international financiers and corporate owners.

    Our Union is aggressively being torn apart.

    The next 50-100 years of steep downside are going to be a brutal time in human history, you can watch it take shape before your eyes. I knew we were approaching an Elliott Grand Supercycle top, a multi-thousand year cycle, as we exited the roaring 1990's. But back then, it was impossible to envision what could possibly happen to end our seemingly endless prosperity. I wondered how anything could take us back into the depths of broad-based natural selection Hell, as nature's inevitable patterns always ordain after a population flourishes.

    10 short years later - it has been laid in front of me.

    I have watched long enough to realize that it is all, in the end, a beautiful and good thing. Natural cycles of boom and bust, of growth and selection, shore up the mental and physical gene pool. The survivors will carry our torch of life into the ages. But I have to say, it is a bummer being on the leading edge of the largest ABC in civilized history. More so, for our children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is it your belief in Darwinism that you use as the basis of your support for the free market? I'm not criticising - I used to say 'Darwin and Dawkins' are my only Gods'- just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Darwinism is probably one of a near-infinite number of natural mechanisms that play in God's Universe.

    Elliott's succinct "Nature's Law" is a spectacular insight in this respectas it requires, mathematically quantifies and predicts, and fully explains the exact nature and role of evil in our world. It shows us in unequivocal terms that the overall natural progression is one of never ending goodness, at all degrees and scales.

    We just happened to be born onto the back slope of civilization's greatest recorded decline.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks. Will try to get the book you recommend. It sounds like interesting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Revolution (of the violent sort, anyway) can't/won't happen without the support of the U.S. military. If the U.S. military sides with the government then the civilians haven't a chance. The disparity in firepower between the military and the civilians is far too great.

    I haven't a clue what it would take to get the military to side with the people, but I expect it would be a lot. The majority of the military leadership at all levels except perhaps the very top would have to *disbelieve* what they are being told by their superiors, including the commander in chief and the civilian leadership itself. In other words, the military leadership would have to see the lie for what it is and decide to act against it.

    I think that's highly unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Overall, a good review of a highly relevant and suspicious bill. However, there are a few items needing expansion/correction.

    The danger in (1) lies in the definition of "unsafe." As of yet, organic is not necessarily unsafe and thus is left open to administrative whim. However, the "food establishment" in section (3) is elsewhere defined to exempt farmers and growers, so no license is required to grow food in your backyard.

    It still leaves farmers open to unconstitutional search and seizure, so I encourage everyone to write their congressman and letters to local editors demanding that this bill be revised to exempt anyone who produces food for direct sale or transfer to the end consumer. Safeguards are great when we're talking about megaproducers that receive only delayed and diluted feedback/repercussions, but free market competition supports honesty and accountability in farmers that sell their products locally and face-to-face.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I wondered how anything could take us back into the depths of broad-based natural selection Hell"----

    Your insights and commentary are eye opening - and frightening. As each of us think of our individual self as one of the 'fittest'(or at least hope that we are), what course of action would you feel should be undertaken now to prepare for adaptation to the new world that we are facing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just to let everybody interested know, I have already contacted my Congressman, Henry Cuellar, D-TX, and I demanded him to DO NOT support this bill at all.

    Also, I expressed my outrage at the level of cynicism that socialists have reached in order control the people, all of us.

    Just imagine the reaction of our founding fathers to this level of mass control.

    Please ask you representatives to DO NOT even think of supporting this bill. it is just plainly catastropic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just hope and pray that our founding fathers don't have to eat any peanut butter from a food processing factory in Texas. Don't want them getting any of that socialist salmonella, it could result in the masses rising up and losing control of their bowels. I don't want no socialist controlling the parasites in my intestines, I have a god given right for the natural law of flatulence and runny stools and I'm willing write a letter to congress to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you are reading way too much into this. I know you will disagree but this is just a food safety inspection act.

    Mostly useless, and expensive to implement, but overall benign

    ReplyDelete
  12. The government of Argentina (and many other countries in Global South) is forced to grow food for export to pay off their huge debts to the World Bank. That is why people are starving in the world, poor nations need to pay debts and interests to the richest nations. (Or formerly rich nations, until the same bankers and power-elite did to their own what they did to Global South.)

    Are there any legal interpretations of this act? I am not saying I don't believe the author, it is just that he does seem to make jumps. Perhaps not unrealistically considering how Monsanto and its ilk manipulate our laws for their own benefit. But I would still like to be referred to an expert opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey anon, chances are if that peanut butter
    was raised organically bt a small farmer, who is honest and not a greedy big plant, that you wouldn't have to worry about it.
    I think that's the point, no?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok, I've had about enough of this. Regardless if this this is true or not I'm still going to put in approxiately 1200 sq. ft. of garden andI'm not filling out any damn forms and will use the fertilizer and sprays I want to. Should Monsanto or any other government goons object they can speak to Mr. Colt or Mr. Ruger or Mr. Winchester. Time to put "Big Brother" to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what do you expect from a country built on ethnic cleansing ,slavery and hatred of all things good .America is going down

    ReplyDelete
  16. Out of 330 million I would expect to see a few more people show evidence of a backbone. As long as you sit there like a bunch of wimps you're going to be treated that way. It is really sad to see the peoples of a once pruod country willingly accept slavery because they are to fat, to lazy and to selfcentered to resist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Uh..seems pretty obvious they are talking about food that is going to be sold to the public not for personal use. This kind of thing gives all of us who are concerned about government overstepping its power a bad name. Who else is going to regulate commercial food production?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I haven't a clue what it would take to get the military to side with the people, but I expect it would be a lot. The majority of the military leadership at all levels except perhaps the very top would have to *disbelieve* what they are being told by their superiors, including the commander in chief and the civilian leadership itself. In other words, the military leadership would have to see the lie for what it is and decide to act against it.

    Funny you should mention it, police and miltary alike are flocking to www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com They reaffirm their oaths and pledge to not follow illegal orders against the people. The military in Madagascar just refused to fire upon the people and allowed them to overthrow their govt.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think someone went a little overboard with the analysis, and the tomato analogy seems a bit silly and dramatic.. In fact in almost every section your tomato analogy does not even come close to being an accurate depiction as to what the law is about.

    The more I go back and read it, the more it seems to me to be a sensible law written to protect consumers from foods that have been mishandled, inappropriately grown, distributed or transported. It also prevents people from slaughtering animals in the backs of restaurants, and if you grow or sell food, you have to let someone in to make sure you are doing it according to the law, all of which are rules that were probably already around in some form or another anyway.

    Truthfully, when you obtain a drivers license, you are probably locked into much scarier laws and rules, some of which you probably are not aware of.. maybe we should look at this food thing a little bit more rationally and with slightly less paranoia.

    I also think that these rules are probably not fair to small conscientious growers as they probably do a good job at growing. Just following the rules probably costs them as much as they make growing the food, but it looks like for the time being this is the way it is going to be. The rules are designed to save lives, not control them, although I am sure it looks pretty confusing at times, and the little guys are probably getting the shortest end of this deal and probably have the least to do with the problems that have resulted in these laws in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not that I trust the government or that I think they are above making such things illegal, but I think this blog posting is a little on the alarmist side and jumps to conclusions. Nowhere did I see where it said a person could not grow their own food. It said that people could no engage in interstate commerce with food that isn't inspected by government agencies, whcih has basically always been the case.

    Is this a backdoor way for Monsanto and other big corporate farms to gain an even larger advantage over the average local farmer? Probably so. But I doubt very seriously that anyone is trying to say you can't grow a tomato in your yard. You just can't send it across state lines and you can't sell it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not sure how the author arrives at the conclusions (interpretations) laid out here. Of course, it is very likely that this is but the first salvo in an effort to outlaw the growing of traditional, non-terminator gene, varieties of plants, but that is not what the legislation outlined here mandates. I do agree, however, that the bill's sponsor has a serious conflict of interests.

    If it should turn out to be but a foot in the door for some future legislation in favor of big business, then people should be worried - especially those in government. The fact that people in the former USSR had grown their own food for years prior to its collapse went a long way to mitigate the effects of that collapse. Should Americans be required by law to purchase seeds from Monsanto, or its ilk, there would undoubtedly be millions who would starve should other considerations, like high fuel prices and disrupted transportation prevail. Right now, it just looks like the government is playing catch up with all of the salmonella outbreaks which have occurred, but it does bear watching.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Colonel Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be
    implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson
    (President 1913 - 1921), Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property
    (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will
    operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to
    our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
    Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be
    our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law
    merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering
    the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their
    pledges.
    They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and
    they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident
    one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only
    logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and
    privileges.
    This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a
    contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will
    unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any
    hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation
    21
    (USA) to foment this plot against America. - Colonel Edward Mandell House

    Learn you don't have to worry about what is illegal only what is unlawful. Learn the difference and chage your life. http://thinkfree.ca clink on the free movies and get a real education!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suspect what will happen is that farmers markets would be the first to go because of the food gestapo. This would be very bad indeed because many farmers markets are the only places where the public can get organic fruits and vegetables.

    One thing I am also puzzled by is under the SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS. It says that it is prohibited--

    (1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe;

    Monsanto and other GMO food manufactures are adulterating and misbranding food all the time. For instance: is your tomato really a tomato when it has fish genes in it? When you start mixing genes from a completely different species that should never belong in another you are adulterating food.

    In Jeffrey Smith's fabulous book "Seeds of Deception" he has shown how genetically modified foods and vitamins were the cause of thousands of deaths and illnesses. The fact the FDA does nothing about GM food is because the regulatory agency is a revolving door for biotech industry personnel.

    By the way Monsanto was originally called IG Farben back in the days. If you know anything about this Nazi company you wouldn't allow them anywhere near your food.

    -- Redpill8

    ReplyDelete
  24. Food-Nazi's and Environmental Fascism is what they have coming for us. I'll grow my own food and they can try to shoot me. There are billions of us and its about damned timed we went after these bastards directly.

    If a Monsanto and these guys want total food domination, then we will show them what regular people can do. I'm sick and tired of their poisons. (I'm probably a bit sick and a bit tired BECAUSE of their poisons)

    ReplyDelete
  25. guys this bill is saying that you can't grow food and sell it outside of your own state without this and that. It is still a bunch of BS but it does not say you can't grow food and then eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. there's always a gov't troll telling people that revolution is futile, and all too many numb-skulls bellieve it without doing the arithmatic. I don't care what kind of firepower the military has. A mere 2% of the American people amounts to a number they haven't a chance against.
    And no, this bill says you can't grow your own food by makinng it illegal to "manufacture" any food deemed unsafe, or slaughter any animal for human consumption. Please read it more carefully, with an eye toward how it might be interpreted to be used against the people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Canned goods, seed banks, shotguns and Krugerrands folks. Any son-of-a-bitch that tells me I can't grow food on my own land and
    give it to whomever I want,and eat whatever I want to eat,,, will be absolutely correct ,,,,as soon as he pry's that shotgun out of my cold dead fingers...
    God Damn it all I want to do is live my life in peace with liberty. Are a people with liberty so threatening to these fascists? If those bastards won't let me do that I'll see them all in Hell...

    Fred

    ReplyDelete
  28. chuck a tomata at em!

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1) If I grow an organic (or any other kind of) tomato for my own personal use, or even the use of my freinds, I am first of all not "manufacturing" it, I am growing it. It will not be introduced, delivered for introduction or recieved in interstate commerce. So the act of growing the tomato in and of itself is not illegal. It may indeed make organic foods illegal, but not my own food.
    2) since it's organic, it is not adulterated, nor is it misbranded since it is not branded at all
    3) I am not a food establishment, this does not apply to me.
    4) I could be considered a "food production facility", but really... I am a home - nothing else. My primary focus is not food production.
    5) Since I am not a food production facility, this does not apply to me.
    6) Again... not a food establisment
    7) This clearly states that food, or material in contact with it, that tests positive for contaminants must be submitted for what I must assume would be further testing.
    8) not fully versed in these sections - the assumption is invalid
    9) Growing my tomato plant has nothing to do with slaughtering animals.
    10) Again, there's no way to restrict my moving my tomato from my backyard to my kitchen.
    11 & 12) assumption invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Regardless of what you might think it is "proper" and correct, the US Federal Government is not supposed to regulate, examine or check anything, even if it is food.

    Vincent, please stop thinking that the government will do a "good" job inspecting the food suply.

    Haven't you seen enought samples of government failed intervensionism and problem-solving abilities??

    Think the Irag war, Katrina, the current SEC fiasco, Enron......

    I mean, the govt is incapable of doing anything right. Threfore, it should not do anything, period.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Vincent,

    Do you really feel protected by the government?

    Please elaborate on what ways is the government currently protecting you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. to kcb:

    the weapon of today is not "military" in traditional sense, but mass media. If you own mass media, you own the minds, who will then vote as told. If you own the media, you don't need to fire a single bullet - you achieve whatever you want by the minds, voices and hands of the millions of your readers and viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The section referenced in the bill would not prohibit you from growing your own food. It would have to be done commercially, and it would have to involve interstate transactions for the law to be applicable. Given the large numbers of incidents of adulterated or contaminated food over the last few years, I think this is a welcome development. And I'll tell you this - I trust the FDA one HELL of a lot more than I trust ConAgra or Archer Daniels Midland. So, just chill...

    ReplyDelete
  34. here is an analysis of hr 875.
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-solemn-walk-through-HR-8-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090314-67.html

    What this bill does is open the door to future regulation by being very ambiguous. With the revolving door in congress, we can guarantee a michael taylor or someone else who works for monsanto will take the reigns and then al bets are off. Lets nip this in the bud!

    ReplyDelete
  35. "And I'll tell you this - I trust the FDA one HELL of a lot more than I trust ConAgra or Archer Daniels Midland. So, just chill..."

    Dude, thats the whole point. Processed food isnt safe or healthy, thats why we need local fresh organic food. This bill will give the gvt. the tools to bankrupt our local farmers so we can't get safe food, or if we can it will be prohibitively expensive. Notice how they don't exempt small farms. And the title is so orwellian double speak it would be funny if it wasn't so serious. "food safety act". Even if the massive processed food production plants were actually investigated and run safely, they still would be pumping out processed genetically modified garbage with no nutritional content. If you trust the fda, why did they let aspartame and gmos get into our food supply then? The fda is run by monsanto and cargill and conagra through the revolving door between gvt. and industry.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Politicians suck big time! If they are not screwing things up one way then they are screwing it up ten other ways all to hell, they are all miserable damned liars!

    We could do better without the likes of all the corruption in high places and if things continue on the present course they've been on leaving no peaceful means for the average citizen to have a voice then a revolution is in due order.

    ReplyDelete
  37. > I trust the FDA one HELL of a lot more than I trust ConAgra or Archer Daniels Midland. So, just chill...

    What are you talking about? The present FDA is ConAgra, Archer Midland and Monsanto. Margaret Hamburg, the new FDA nominee for the FDA is an associate of Jerome Hauer, the most likely perp in the Anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11. It gives me pause.

    ReplyDelete
  38. While this won't make it illegal to grow your own food, it is a major step toward making growing your own the only way to find healthy food.

    This law is all about destroying the organic food market and local farmer's markets to surrender complete control of our food (and therefore health) to the major corporations like Monsanto (who wrote most of the law to kill off competition)

    The mere fact that they're pushing a Million Dollar Fine (per instance?!?!) shows very clearly that this is nothing more than a government intimidation & control move.

    Terrorist governments work that way.
    Not surprising for a government that now demonstrates the belief that America was wrong in the past, Nazi Germany & the Soviet Union had it right. That's the basis of nearly all laws coming out of DC now.

    The only debate left, as far as they're concerned, is whether we are government property or corporate property.

    And if the lack of healthy food or drinkable water tends to kill off millions - so what? There's billions of us and we're a renewable resource.

    Our government hates us.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To the folks that think that this bill is OK because YOU can still grow food at your own house... Hmmm.. WHAT about your local organic farmer, and your local Farmer's Market!? What about their livlihoods? Local food is more than just local, it binds communities together. Everyone ought to be suspicious of a person with such close ties to big agri-business that introduces a bill of this type (Rosa DeLauro). Rosa DeLauro's husband is a lobbyist for Monsanto for crying out loud. You folks seriously need to do a little research. Youtube 'The future of food', 'The world according to Monsanto' or Democracy Now's 'Monsanto's Harvest of Fear' to start. Do you honestly trust your Gov't enough to think that they have good faith in this bill? IF this passes they will take more, outlaw more, regulate this more, invade your life and property more.

    This quoted from an article:

    It is our farmers who stand between us and this outrage which masquerades as science, as food, as normal business, as government. And it is or farmers who need not only protecting and but actual freeing from government intrusion, control and harm.

    Vegetarians and vegans do not identify with farmers who raise animals but what is at stake here is critical for all of us. "First they came for the Jews" is an apt reminder of what matters in standing with each other because the overwhelming bureaucratic burdens, the recording over every single thing done on a farm, the warrantless inspections, the end of farmers markets, the criminalization of seed banking, the ten years in prison for stepping out of line in any way, will next be applied not to animals breaking out of fence onto a neighbors' farm, but for such things as not spraying pesticides on an organic farm to eradicate earthworms (now listed as an invasive species) because the government's "food safety tsar" has deemed it necessary. It is totalitarian control (and HR 875 epitomizes it) which we stand against, and now it is aimed with ferocity at farmers with animals. Stopping it now keeps all farmers safe.

    Rosa DeLauro and Stanley Greenburg have a great deal to account for in attempting through a mislabeled bill with hidden intent to wipe out our farmers and harm all of us."

    Being able to grow organic means a cleaner environment, rich productive soils FULL of life, and staying as far away from genetically modified foods as we CHOOSE TO. The KEY word being CHOOSE here.

    Also good info to read:

    opensecrets.org
    followthemoney.org to see how these political whores work.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This House bill & its companion Senate bill are both in committee - most bills in committee never see the light of Congress, and those that do are rarely successful.
    This is good news - go to
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-875 for the names of the sponsors and co-sponsors & shout at them NO! Let's Get This TRAVESTY STOPPED NOW!
    Note: The rep who introduced this bill is Rosa DeLauro, whose husband is Stanley Greenberg who either works for Monsanto or Monsanto is client of Greenberg's Democratic polling & consulting firm that sets left-leaning political strategy. Is it any wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The only time government is truly inept and incapable of doing anything well is when it is controlled by ideological followers of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Leo Strauss.

    Katrina/New Orleans, Iraq, Pinochet's Chile, Argentina, post-Soviet Russia, Poland, etc are all results of Friedmanite/Straussian philosophies. Eliminate their followers from the picture and government does just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  42. >> "First they came for the Jews" is an apt reminder of what matters in standing with each other because the overwhelming bureaucratic burdens <<

    Actually, "they came for the Jews" was the second stanza in Niemoller's famous poem. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

    Which reads:

    "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
    And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
    And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
    And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

    So, in fact, the first sign is anti-communist fervor followed by anti-unionist activity. So watch out for those who express anti-socialist and anti-union sentiments...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Correction, "they came for the Jews" is the third stanza, not the second. My apologies for the error.

    ReplyDelete
  44. TO the SOB`s that passed this law or try to , I will have a revolution bullet with your name on it sucka!! Thats it , they are obviously bankrupting the country as we speak , cutting off any means to provide for ourselves outside the neocon agenda for sole dependancy on One world govt and on top setup any way to search and seizure for growing a tomatoe. Its turning into a complete joke, and so obvious now what the agenda is. ROVOLUTION!!!! Time is way over due ,save up now before they make gun illegal too thats next on obama`s agenda ,hes clearly and freaggin puppet as the others were(no suprize) . Buy guns and more ammo than you can shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The lie that America is a Democracy and that we have rights as individuals is finally being exposed as a complete deception. A lie reinforced by our propagandize education system and the people it produces.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Any person who still believes that we have a representative republic needs to have his/her head examined. Baa-aaa-aaa-aaa. Look down and keep grazing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry, FDR, but you need to be a little more careful with your claims.

    I doubt very seriously that it is ILLEGAL to grow an organic tomato in your own backyard.

    It is probably illegal, however, to take that tomato to market and try to SELL it COMMERCIALLY as an ORGANIC tomato - because you have no evidence that it is ORGANIC except your own claim that it is.

    That selling tactic is as old as snake oil.

    ReplyDelete
  48. On average, every forty-six years, for the last two hundred and seventy years, there has been a commodity peak in the world's stock markets, followed by a crash, followed by a depression and the theft of a generation's wealth. (From "The Great Reckoning" by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg, Sidgwick & Jackson, yes, 1993).
    There is a nine-year period between the commodity peak and the depression.
    Look around you and do the math: The last depression is called The Great Depression.
    I call this one ‘Grand Theft Planet’ ©.
    First question: Given that Bernie Madoff will not be tried, the question, “where is the money?” will not arise – Why?
    Change is essential to the development of any thinking and there is really no answer to originality:
    ‘A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous and then dismissed as trivial, until finally, it becomes what everybody (already) knows.
    Here then is a new idea, one which you are already fully aware of, and therefore (already) know: Hence a certain arrogance on my part in the presumption that you are already here with me in this observation of the obvious:
    I call it the General Field Theory of Economic Behavior, for lack of anything more worthy, simply because no economic thinking that I am aware of has ever been applied to repetitive global economic behavior ('boom-bust cycles') in this light – all studies, observations and theses have been just that, from Smith's "hidden hand" to Keynes' "use it to fiddle with the system" – theories.
    Nothing more, and certainly never applied to the real world of actual economic behavior in the marketplace where I buy corn, pork bellies, sorghum, potatoes, grapes, oranges and sometimes antique collectables called Credit Default Swaps.
    As far as I know there have been no attempts in universities or in any other think tank type establishments at an understanding of the how of which in a million ways people complicate the use of money and, again which, until now, remains a field that appears to be untilled, unplowed and unharvested.
    Untill this observation of mine opens it to at least some gleaning.
    Economic literature is much like the literature of psychology where ‘Freudian’ theory, the theory of 'Existentialist phenomenology', (Neurolinguistically speaking), and so on make people think that there is substance in the writing down of speculation.
    Theory.
    Nothing wrong with theory, and, like any other uniform ‘theory’, my General Economic Theory has to apply to every aspect of the complications people can possibly make in the use of money.
    And it has to be just as simple as E=Mc2:
    And it is: Money = Food.
    From Peasant to Prince: In all of history, food must be on both tables for any society to function.
    From here, I could discourse at length; go into discussions involving philosophy, politics, religion, even the Ten Commandments on family matters, and then argue for some time in every one of those categories and more.
    But not for too long, because without a good breakfast, you will not be capable of rebuttal however unintelligently I might seem to persuade.
    Food.
    Equals.
    Life.
    What is food, really?
    Aristotle's belief that touching was required for one object to exert a force on another object together with his ideas that a constant velocity requires that a constant force be exerted held back ideas of gravity for nearly 2000 years.
    Held back?
    Yup. Gravity does not touch you, so great philosopher’s thinking actually held back the arrival of a great truth – Newton’s theory of gravity – for two thousand years.
    Most of history is what the winners of the last war want you to believe – after all, they write it.
    So: Life equals energy, which equals matter multiplied by the speed of light squared, a truth that arrived about a hundred years ago in the mind of one Mr. Albert Einstein, who also observed (since this is a discussion on economic reality) that “the greatest force in the universe is compound interest.”
    Einstein's theory of gravitation was completely different to Newton's, and certainly in opposition to Aristotle’s: Rather than believing gravity to be a mysterious force that simply attracted objects towards one another he saw gravity as a warping of the shape of space and the flow of time (commonly referred to as the space-time continuum).
    He described a gravitational field as a curvature of space-time caused by the mass inhabiting that continuum.
    He also believed that as energy is equivalent to mass (from E = mc2) it would be possible for a gravitational field to interact with the energy of light in the same way that he saw it interacting with mass, with the result being the bending of light in strong gravitational fields.
    One physical, abrupt, observable and applicable function of this theory:
    Hiroshima.
    Money is much simpler but should not blow you up. What happens instead is that it gets stolen every fifty years or so because the victim generation somehow 'forgets' to tell next one.
    This written with the idea that the next generation, the one we hope will not suffer another Grand Theft Planet, will finally be educated and hold on to their wealth.
    Money equals the solar energy contained in food.
    Money is a vehicle of transaction from one state of energy to another state.
    Everything else money is used for that does not walk on a direct path from the peasant farmer’s produce to the Priest / Prince who eats that farmer’s wealth, is speculation on the nature of money which, by itself, is nothing more than a temporal transactional smoothing substance equivalent to a good lubricant – and, “you can’t take it with you” so it’s essentially worthless inasmuch as one agrees that the most valuable thing you can own is your next breath.
    A given.
    Also, If you like, an inevitability, considering the nature of human beings, which is a conclusion I believe you may come to as you follow this simple argument.
    Food is everything.
    Carbon dioxide is the food of our food, the plants we eat, which eat carbon dioxide, so 'global warming is just another scam, a way to take some of your wealth in 'carbon taxes'.
    In support of this, please read what remains of Hammurabi’s Code.
    And then, in the light of Hammurabi’s contribution to my theory, consider the Ten Commandments.
    And then, with those two suggestions in mind, think about this: The Law we live under today is based on one, and only one, principle - embedded in Hammurabi's Code, the Ten Commandments and in today’s harsh remnants of Roman Dutch law: it boils down to the reality of living: Thou shalt not interrupt commerce, nor the myriad games that the money commerce gives us leave to play with.
    Thou shalt not interrupt the chain that brings the farmer’s produce – our collective wealth – to the prince’s table.
    That is the fundamental law of economics.
    The 'gravity' that makes us obey the fundamental law? Two French words: Mort (death) gage (cage).
    E=mc2.
    QED.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "I doubt very seriously that it is ILLEGAL to grow an organic tomato in your own backyard."

    That's right, it would only be illegal to eat your own tomatoes, not to grow them.

    It is home grown, life sustaining food produced by American citizens outside the corrupt, illegal, international corporatocracy in firm control of our congress and the executive, that is to be outlawed, not the innocent red tomatoes themselves.

    Our Founding fathers would blow a gasket. Their once proud nation, founded upon the very principle of rugged individual freedom from forced federal profiteering, has been disgraced by a congress loaded with swindlers and horse thieves, led by a string of presidents feverishly working to sell American sovereignty to the international financial interests that own them.

    We are a nation in peril.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Perhaps you could point-out where this bill, denies a person from growing their own food; it appears that this bill is for food producers whom "distribute (sell)" their food products. However, it is just the first step in criminalizing food production, which will carry a higher penalty than growing tobacco or pot. While it does appear that farmers' markets and people with produce stands in their front yards will be affected by the draconian provisions of this bill, I fail to see where a person will come into contention by growing porch tomatoes for their own consumption. But in all honesty I only skimmed the legalese terms of this proposed bill. Perhaps Rosa, whose husband works for one of the biggest culprits of GM-Frankenfruit seed products needs to find a way to cut off the head of the beast... after all he is current employed in its belly. I am curious as to why Rosa would "out" her husband's name in this matter… this blog article may surely be the end of her husband’s employment with Monsanto.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This bill is aimed at commercial food processors. It has nothing to do with folks growing their own food..ie, tomatoes. Unfortunately, only a small portion of the bill is posted here...the enforcement portion, and I would guess that this was done in order to establish the claim that folks will no longer be able to grow their own "tomatoes" if this bill is passed. I personally read the ENTIRE bill, which is why I was able to see the "Agenda" here. This is not only dishonest, but deceitful...It is designed to instill fear. Unfortunately the author missed a great opportunity to expose the REAL danger of a bill like this...This bill is specifically designed to give agribusiness an advantage over the small and moderate sized family food producers...The American Farmer. It is also designed to let the Federal Government decide what you and I should be eating, and since they hit one out of the park with water flouridation, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, when it comes to the food we eat.

    ReplyDelete
  52. To the troll who said that the disparity is too great between the government and the people in terms of firepower: How do you explain the Iraqi resistance then? They had no air force, no navy, no armor or heavy artillery yet they fought the strongest power on Earth' to a standstill with home made weapons and 1980s vintage light arms.

    Bush's 'surge' was nothing more than the U.S. military PAYING OFF Sunni resistance groups NOT TO FIGHT our troops. Now with that in mind and also knowing that there are over 80 MILLION gun owners in this country, what makes you think revolution is so logistically untenable?

    ReplyDelete
  53. This just looks like a pretty regular set of rules regarding food processing and packing plants. Not one word is mentioned about restricting farmers and gardeners from growing and raising and consuming their own organic food... Looks to me like a lot of folks are freaking out needlessly. I see Alex Jones got to ya...

    ReplyDelete
  54. A red herring. This seems a lot more of interest to farmers using seeds from Monsanto and having to label them as such, than anyone growing produce in their backyard. Even reselling home grown veggies doesn't appear to be a "crime" so long as they're noted to be homegrown/organic, or whatever else. Which is actually a marketable item.

    I want to know what's in my food. I want to avoid GMO crops. This bill seems to help with that...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Doesn't apply to farmers or individuals, this is grossly misinterpreted... and with all the food issues going on, anyone selling goods to the general public should be subject to search and seizure. While I'm all about freedom, I'm more concerned with the health and safety of my children. The new head of the fda is implementing these regulations to prevent things not to control things... everyone complained when the spinach, tomatoes and peanuts were tainted, and blamed the government for not taking appropriate measures, well they can't babysit the companies, but they can regulate what products they us and give themselves the right to make sure they are abiding at any time. This article is nothing but paranoia in the wrong direction. Hmmm... safety versus the freedom of people who produce food for the public, I'll take safety.

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://www.unknownnews.org/debunk.html

    Latest update: Mar. 15, 2009

    No, Congress is not considering a bill that would "make it illegal to grow your own food, or for any farm not to purchase and use government mandated chemicals, additives, and pesticides on all food consumed in the United States, violations are subject to a $1,000,000 dollar fine." Sigh. Some people will believe anything.
    H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a well-intentioned effort to improve food safety standards (which became effectively non-existent during the Bush-Cheney era). It ain't great lawmaking, and it needs a rewrite to ensure that its regulations for factory farming aren't applied to small mom and pop farms, but a fair reading of the bill's text reveals that it just plain wouldn't do the horrible things that panicked emails and worried bloggers claim it does. And if you're still concerned, here's a more thorough explanation of what the bill does and doesn't do.
    http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/background-on-h-r-875

    ReplyDelete
  57. "It ain't great lawmaking, and it needs a rewrite to ensure that its regulations for factory farming aren't applied to small mom and pop farms"

    Exactly. It applies to everyone introducing food, as written.

    This congress is deeply anti-American.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Homegrower in TexasMarch 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM

    I also did not interpret the language in this bill to mean I can't grow my own tomatoes in my back yard and eat them myself. READ the bill. If I were to sell the tomatoes for commercial purposes or try to transport them across state lines, then the provisions of the bill come into play. Read it yourself without editorializing from others.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You may like this:

    http://broadcast.ino.com/education/bear_market_rally/?campaignid=

    Leonidas from MW

    ReplyDelete
  60. So I haven't read all the comments. I'll put in a small producer's two cents: small producers are fiercely independent and wily bunch. I've seen the goat diary's in Texas turn in their liscences because of intense regulation and fines on what tends to be a labor of love rather than a money maker. I've seen livestock maintainence fees so that Californians can get their raw milk. I've seen raw milk sold as pet food to comply. I've seen dairys require customer pickup so as to remove farm liabilities that come with these type of legislations. Technically your baby bottle filled with Horizon is illegal except on private property (it's an unmarked dairy container).
    Animal chipping is more of a concern to me than this bill. This bill is however alarming. I of course want any food that I sell to be safe, but I'll never be of a scale that I would be able to afford the testing to gross a few thousand per year. I'll never be able to afford a butcher and state approved butchering facilities - I'd be better off selling the animals live and reducing my returns. I'd happily walk anyone that buy's our food through our "production facilities". We do our best and are always open to doing it better. We won't open ourselves up to the kind of fines that this sort of legislation imposes- too massive for the little guys - too small for agribusiness. This law is in fact far too broad. I for one am tired of this rouse of the land of the free and more rightly call it the land of regulation and litigation.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If the military sides with the government the citizens haven't a chance? Baloney! After 7 years the cream of the US Army, and Marines could not control 23 million people in Iraq. What chance do they have at controlling 300 million over here? Answer: None. Oh they could hold some key cities, protect certain infrastructure, but by and large, if "the people" decide to rise, the Army won't be able to stop them. No amount of firepower will stop an asymmetrical insurgency. Iraq has taught us that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Not only Iraq, but also Vietnam, where a bunch of peasants in pajamas held back the full might of the US military until it went home with its tail between its legs.

    In fact, the US military hasn't won a war against a competent opponent since WWII, and even then they required the assistance of the majority of the world's nations to beat a nation the size of Montana and a nation with a 19th century industrial base.

    The US has not won a war against an opponent of equal or greater capability since the Revolutionary War. Recently, about all the US military is capable of defeating are nations like Panama, Granada and Saddam's Iraq in 1991, with the help of a coalition of nations including the UK and France.

    About the only thing the US military is really capable of doing is spending vast quantities of taxpayer money on gaudy high-tech gadgets.

    ReplyDelete
  63. We beat Iraq up pretty good, twice.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Well...what's a ranch? In Texas, a ranch could be 3 acres. A farm could be 5 acres...read the WHOLE document to see why the concerns are raised.

    (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

    Secondly: Section 102: Did you notice the name change???

    (c) Renaming and Reservation of Agency Identity- The Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby renamed the Federal Drug and Device Administration and may be referred to as `FDA'.

    UNBELIEVEABLE!!!! THIS IS DEFINITELY A FORERUNNER!

    READ THE WHOLE THING...IT IS WORTH IT...HERE IS THE LINK: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111Z826VM:e11439:

    KEEP REFRESHING, IF IT GIVES YOU ANY PROBLEMS.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Understand that the "Bill" would impose rules and regulations that can and will be applied to anyone growing food for sale or barter.
    The enforcement and inspections will be paid for by those who produce/Grow the food, hence the giant Agro-cons who can afford the inspections and facility's will have no problem.
    On the other hand we have small farmers who cant afford to put in specialized facility's or put a full time inspector on the payroll, and will be seen as unable to comply.
    If you don't think this will happen look at the meat processing industry were small slaughter houses and processors have been put out of business by just this method.
    This allowed the big corporations to monopolize the meat production industry at the expense of our health and choice.
    (large corporate packing plants have caused more illness and death from unsanitary conditions than all the little home town slaughter houses and butcher shops combined)
    Now they look to do the same thing with our produce, shrinking our choices to only their highly profitable processed foods.
    With care only for profits they sacrifice our health and nutrition.
    Do they own stock in the pharmaceutical company's???
    The Government of the United States of America is the best that money can buy, its to bad that only a very few have enough money to have much of a share.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm astounded at the LACK OF READING SKILLS amongst you guys. NOWHERE does it stop you from growing your own food. LEARN TO READ.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "I'm astounded at the LACK OF READING SKILLS amongst you guys. NOWHERE does it stop you from growing your own food. LEARN TO READ."

    It doesn't STOP you, it makes it illegal to "to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe."

    Since Orwellian government doublespeak has, in the very same bill, officially defined the meaning the term "adulterated" to mean "non-adulterated" or "not first touched by government" eating any natural food is clearly and explicitly illegal.

    That doesn't STOP you from eating natural food un-touched by government, but you risk losing your freedom if you chose to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  68. question on #1...

    it says it prohibits "manufacture of food that is adulterated, misbranded, or unsafe." adulterated means modified, say, with chemicals or genetically. misbranded means false label, not disclosing the right ingredients, withholding, say, aspertame from the label. unsafe is clear though impossible to regulate cuz it can be argued sugar is unsafe and so on. but unsafe means expired date on some foods.

    now, where do you get that you cannot grow a tomato?

    I'm not arguing that they don't have evil ends in mind but this? Your red comments do NOT reflect what's said in the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The bill says it is illegal to "introduce" any food that is not first modified by government.

    Introduce = grow.

    ReplyDelete
  70. With all of this talk of Revolution, I feel I should point something out. What if Revolution is part of the New World Order's plan? What if they are trying to bring about a revolution to use as a pretext for enacting Martial Law in the United States, and imprisoning dissenters as terrorists, and in the process accomplishing their goal of creating the North American Union, and further, World Government?

    I say that if a Revolution does break out within the United States, we'd better damned well win it, because if we don't, we're going to see the end of our great country, mark my words. And also, in the event of Revolution, we must not forget to prosecute the Financial and Military powers behind the curtain, lest we face a continuation of their goals of Global Tyranny, and we will have the same problems again, because they will just buy the new government, as they did with the old.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Did you people even read it? As in, the black font and not the erroneous red font. These only apply to, as the bill states, COMMERCE AND FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS.

    Growing a carrot in your backyard for yourself is not commerce, nor does it make you a food establishment.

    This only applies if you wanna grow your own food in order to sell it, which in that case I agree with this law you americans are getting. We know you are not a country who thinks for their own so its good for you

    ReplyDelete
  72. I've read the bill. I've read all the comments, and I cannot see where growing your own food will become illegal. I do not see where selling your food at a local food market will become illegal IF you are open as to what chemicals you use, etc. And I DO want food coming from a factory to be strictly regulated and monitored. The Bill needs to be more tightly written and should not be written by someone who has a vested interest........like that's going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hello, I am Paul Turner and have been involved in organic gardening for many years. I am a past President of the Central Ohio Organic Gardeners Club. I have all the back issues Rodale Press Organic Gardening and Farming magazine.
    Perhaps this dates me, I am hoping so.

    Concerning the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act S424 and Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 HR875; I have read both these Bills and they both contain vague and overlapping definitions which can easily be applied to the smallest grower.

    H.R. 875 would essentially transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly-established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Its implications point to the elimination of independent, family farms as well as organic farming operations due to overbearing federal regulations subjectively determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

    Do we really want or need further government intervention on the growing of food?

    Paul Turner

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Growing a carrot in your backyard for yourself is not commerce, nor does it make you a food establishment."
    -----

    You seem to be missing the word "or."

    Manufacturing/introducing/delivering food is illegal

    "or"

    receiving unmodified food in interstate commerce

    ...and so on...

    ReplyDelete
  75. They subsist only because we finance them with our tax dollars. Hence, their power is our money. Is the implication plain enough?

    ReplyDelete
  76. our tax dollar is very small compared to the amount they're financed by central bankers.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I can't believe the amount of Anonymouses that still think Government is actually needed. If you are so stupid you don't know how to buy a toamato without Government help, you deserve everything that is coming in your direction !
    Beware of the words, "We are from the government and we are here to help you !"
    If you still don't GET it, you deserve your fate.

    ReplyDelete
  78. ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION ROVOLUTION

    ReplyDelete
  79. before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too before they make gun illegal too

    ReplyDelete
  80. If the idiot that wrote the blog and all those up in arms about this bill would actually read it, they'd see that it does not make growing organic tomatoes in your back yard illegal. Nor does it apply to farms of any size.



    Take a look at "Sec.3.Definions" in the bill.....



    13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-



    (A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘food establishment’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.



    (B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).



    (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Right, the bill explicitly applies to "a farm" that could normally retail produce for $1K per year. That requires one a tomato plant. Check out the Mortgage Lifter:

    http://monticellostore.stores.yahoo.net/600066.html

    But the term "any farm" likely covers all food production operations of any scale, in addition to all the other categories of food introduction or delivery that it mentions, and also those in (8) that it says it doesn't mention.

    It is "for the public safety" so it must apply to everyone or it wouldn't protect citizens equally under the law.

    Imagine the law suits, if someone was producing their own food without paying the registration taxes and buying the requisite government chemicals, filed by those those who were shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  82. WHERE IS THE PETITION TO STOP THIS!??? WHAT LEADER??? WHAT DO WE DO!!!!???

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow !!! all this concern and I don't see one comment regarding the one action against the law that we can take, that is to vote any official "OUT of Office " that votes in favor of this new law . you have to know that we can not change the way those in office now conduct business. So the only way to stop them is as stated above. If they are not there , they can't vote ! can they .

    ReplyDelete
  84. where is my post

    ReplyDelete
  85. it is amazing the extent the gov will go to assuage the problems of the ave amer psyche (go frack yourself) if this goes to vote i will
    follow ben franklin and his associates example
    my name is dave j kramer, it is amazing the anonymous posts are anti american government power oriented,any correlation to the founders frustration and rage is meaningful (i know what is ggod for me Do You!!!!!?)

    ReplyDelete
  86. There is obfuscating language in this bill designed to confuse and redirect your attention to thinking by implication rather than specification. This is cleverly illustrated using the words "include(s)", "exclude(s)" and custom definitions. So let's take a look at an example.


    (a) In General- Any food establishment or foreign food establishment engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States shall register annually with the Administrator.

    Notice that annual registration is limited to a Food Establishment or foreign food establishment. One cannot imply that this extends beyond these two entities as defined in the definitions section and only those that engage in manufacturing, processing, packing or holding food for consumption.

    Before I get to what is a Food Establishment or foreign food establishment, let me give you an example of the use of include and typical efforts employed to muddy the waters.

    To start with we must recognize that if a word is meant to be understood as having its common meaning, there is no need to define it at all. It is axiomatic that if a word is explicitly defined, it has a restricted meaning. If language such as the term "Fruit" is used and defined as "includes, apples, oranges, and pears", it can only be understood as restricting the definition to those things listed, or no definition would be required; the word "fruit" would be understood to include apples, oranges and pears, as well as all other fruits. If the word "common" is left out of the definition, then the things used in the definition are what establish the class to which belong, and as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.

    Under the definitions section:

    (13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-

    (A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘food establishment’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

    (B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

    (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

    So a Food Establishment is not a farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, confined animal-feeding operation. This is a custom definition, is specific and no other implications can be drawn as meaning something else. Note that farm, ranch .... since not custom defined, have a common definition without exclusion or inclusion. I do not have cites to their common definition.

    In addition to the above, a Food Establishment is not a resturant, retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment or fishing vessel (as limited in definition to section 123.3 of title 21 of CFR). Again, resturant, retail food establishment .... have a common definition without exclusion or inclusion.

    There is a specific class of actions as custom defined by 'Process', all of them being Commercial.

    (19) PROCESS- The term ‘process’ or ‘processing’ means the commercial slaughter, packing, preparation, or manufacture of food.

    Note this means Commercial slaughter, commercial packing, commercial preparation, commercial manufacture of food.

    There is another specific class of actions not defined but listed as holds, stores, or transports. Common definitions apply here.

    Also, there is a geographical constraint that limits this to any State. What is a State?

    (20) STATE- The term ‘State’ means--

    (A) a State;

    (B) the District of Columbia;

    (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

    (D) any other territory or possession of the United States.

    This is important since we move to the only other entity required to register annually, a foreign food establishment.

    (16) FOREIGN FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term ‘foreign food establishment’ means any category 1 through 5 food establishment or food production facility located outside the United States that processes or produces food or food ingredients for consumption in the United States.

    Look at what has happened here. The Food Establishment custom definition does not apply since the location is specific and "located outside the United States" and does not fall within the confines of a 'State'. Therefore the exclusions of "(14) Food Production Facility" do not apply.

    This makes this particular entity far more reaching than the restrictive entity of a "Food Establishment" located in a 'State'.

    What does all this mean?

    If you do not fall under the custom definition of a "Food Establishment" you are not required to register. If you are not required to register then there is no categorization of you as a Category 1 thru 5, you can't be assigned a registration number, there is no inspection, monitoring, or reporting requirements. This is however not a statement that you are not obligated to practice good health standards.

    ReplyDelete
  87. we the people have the right to vote.
    this country is great because of that, dont like whats going on.. vote em out!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous wrote: "we the people have the right to vote. this country is great because of that, dont like whats going on.. vote em out!"

    Yes, we have that right. And with the system as it is right now, it is essentially useless.

    You can only vote for someone whose existence you're aware of, and you're likely to vote only for whichever person is least distasteful to you.

    Everything then depends on how you become aware of a candidate and what influences your opinion of that candidate. In the U.S., the single greatest determining factor for both is the mass media.

    And the mass media is owned by people who have an agenda of their own. An agenda that you would almost certainly disapprove of.

    The end result is that the only candidates that (a) get reasonable (if any) amounts of media exposure, and (b) aren't universally made to look like fools by the media, are those candidates which are willing to do the bidding of those in real power.

    A vote is a choice. With the system as it's arranged right now, your choice is worthless, because it's a choice between people who are the same in all the ways that really matter.

    The only way out of this is for the influence of the mass media, and all those entities that those in power control, to wane before the ability to vote is removed or neutered.

    I have very little hope that will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Rev 13:17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
    It's coming.

    ReplyDelete
  90. @FDR: Darwinism simply does not work. One example (of many) is the Mantis Shrimp, which distinguishes polarised UV light. In marine conditions. Where there is none at all of either to provide selection pressure.

    With that distraction set aside, we need to ask the first important question: “Why?”

    Billions of years are imagined without any real evidence. A white-hole cosmology fits the Real Life™ observations much better. Why?

    Self-development is imagined against quite literally impossible odds, where the evidence speaks only of decay, extinction & collapse. Why?

    Random numbers & “coincidence” are empowered to produce functional structure which must work first time, every time. This has never been observed, in fact the Miller & Urey experiments demonstrated that it does not work. Why?

    The basic answer appears to be big-time OCP Disorder. People imagine that things are a certain way, then insist on them being so, & work to make the products of their imagination seem real.

    Genuine fairy tales are quite ugly & painful. Stand by to be forced into one.

    The second (always second) important question to ask is “How?” & this resolution seems to be one of the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Thats just crazy. Of course it will all start out as just food distributors then they will take away property owners rights also. He who controls the food controls the people. Next you will be standing in line so you can receive a mark just to receive the food. Hmm, can we say revelation??

    ReplyDelete
  92. I predict the sponsors of HR 875 are likely not going to have such a la-dee-dah time, as Farmers and those who are all about... There has been a lot of fear and hysteria surrounding the Food Safety Modernization Act coming from small growers, organic gardeners, and organic consumers alike.

    ReplyDelete
  93. this is the work of the luminaries there is a patition against this law i will get back to you all with the details if these people control the worlds food suplies who knows waht they will do they are trying to force the world to eat chemical pumped foods fluride is the main one that will be used and that stuff slowly kills your brain think back to tha age of hitler and the concentration camps why do you think all those people just walked into the pits to get shot they were poisoned with fluride it kills the conciousness of the brain you know whats happening but you cant do anything to act on it now its all coming back and theres proof with the new concentration camps being built around america as we speak

    ReplyDelete
  94. The Wayne country health Department makes routine inspections of food service establishments for employee practices, food storage and handling, food temperatures, utensil washing,restrooms and general sanitation.

    ReplyDelete
  95. It sounds like very interesting stuff. I am not knowledgeable about this issue, but I have heard that it could make organic produce and growing your own food illegal in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I'd have to disagree with the assumption that a revolutionary war requires total cooperation between the U.S. military and civillians. First and foremost; we are the ones who hold our government and nation up. The government killing that many innocent people would not be a very feasible move in my opinion because of that fact.

    Secondly, the majority of the military is comprised of your average joe/young adults who enjoy eating McDonald's and driving a Mustang while listening to rap music, growing their own tomatoes, and generally enjoy doing whatever they want in a free world just as much as the next person. They all have normal friends, they all have normal families. My family members were almost all members of the navy, a friend of mine is a member of the navy right now, another friend of mine a member of the air force right now. I can tell you without a whisper of doubt they'd all rather face capital punishment then blow up their own homes and people.

    Let us also not forget what we did to the British so many years ago (admittedly with some help).

    Resorting to violence as the answer aside, I don't understand why if people are so terrified of this big bad government, that they don't simply write and complain to their government. Let them know you don't appreciate being pushed around and repressed. Better yet, if you truly think it's so damn important, were that sure something that cataclysmic would happen, and really cared about the issue, you'd run for an office yourself and do what you can to change things. Not scamper around like chickens with all your doomsday preachy blabber while obviously doing what all the other "brainwashed" are doing - going about your daily lives and hoping for the best.

    ReplyDelete

The USA's political-economc system is best described as:

On Nov 2, 2010, I plan to vote (FOR or AGAINST) my incumbent congressman

 
Free Hit Counter