»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
What's Next....the Plant Police???
| The Alley |
|
What's Next....the Plant Police??? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money. “If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food. Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming. History In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP. In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510. S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/s... |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We have to get these fascists out of office, as many as possible this November. It's one outrageous government intrusion into our lives after the other. This current administration and Congress are worse than Woodrow Wilson and FDR combined. The Founders are surely turning over in their graves. God save the Republic. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
How about the Blog Police? Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government (in this case the Federal Election Commission). The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.” Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere. (Reason.com) This law would probably extend to Twitter as well, not to mention Facebook too (the latter who is embroiled in another censorship case via Pakistan). Although this law (or measure) will probably be struck down by the US Supreme Court (who seems to love the first amendment aka “freedom of speech” for you non-yanks), the fact that the US government would even consider this is troublesome. http://www.blogherald.com/2010/05/20/political-blogs-regulated-fec/ |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I was interested in how a government could actually think they could do this so hunted Bill 510 down. I noted your first posting was an excerpt from The World Phophecy I further hunted more sources trying to read the actual bill, which I found here: Open Congress Strangely the two definitions of the same bill are sure not alike. I can see where the government would want to control the food as in the second link, as they do here. I think it highly unlikely that they would stop individuals from growing, exchanging, or even selling their goods for that matter such as in Farmer's Markets, but suppose the prices would be higher as would they be in the making of animal food. This Bill 510 appears to be on a much larger scale, to control the distribution of, growing plants, and processing factories, etc. I for one would welcome anything that oversees the safety of the "crap" we are now eating. I try to eat only organic, but is it? Who knows? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Sharon. it's good when people like you dig in to find facts and I applaud you for it. "unlikely" is a dangerous word when describing what a law might do. It may be unlikely to you but that doesn't mean unlikely to someone else, like the people behind the bill. A bill shouldn't describe what might or might not happen....b ut what will happen. Everything in that bill you linked to shouts of three things - money, power, control. Also on that same page is this article... S.510, the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010, requires federal definition of "food," federal certification of "food" before it can be sold (even from a farmers' market), federal licensing of food growers (formerly known as farmers), processors and sellers – all in the name of "food safety," of course, and funded by a new food tax (VAT tax?), of course. It looks like a couple of outbreaks of salmonella in eggs or peanut butter (even when no one died) is enough of a "crisis" to advance the agenda of total federal takeover of the largely free-market, American food-producing cornucopia. Three generations ago, 40 percent of Americans worked on the farm. Today, 2 percent do, and they produce more food of higher quality for more people at a lower price than their ancestors did. Democrats believe it's time to step in and stop the success. The attitude of this regime was best expressed in a recent brief filed by the Obama Justice Department in opposition to a lawsuit brought by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund challenging the federal ban on the interstate sale of raw milk. The brief asserted, "There is no 'deeply rooted' historic tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds. … Plaintiffs assertions to a 'fundamental' right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." According to Obama, you only have the "right" to food the government chooses. The Democrats act to not only build yet another federal staff of unionized, dues-paying Democrat voters, and not only to satisfy their inner nanny, but also to satisfy the corporate fat-cat supporters they love to hate in their speeches and love to get campaign money from at glittering events like the recent two-day golf tournament at Pebble Beach, Calif. S.510 was drafted by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants that want to use federal law to bolster public confidence in their products, and, oh yes, make entry of new competitors in their business all the more expensive. But the prize proposal among Democrats last week was clearly the Healthy Choices Act, authored by Democrat Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin. Kind's gem amends the Public Health Services Act to require the states to in turn force all doctors in their state to determine the body mass index of all their patients, ages 2 through 18, and report that information to the state and then send this information to the feds. Given the problems with the BMI (according to the BMI, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was "overweight"), imagine your sweet 16 daughter's BMI on every computer from your town to Washington, D.C. Surely the SEC porn surfers will be delighted. In fact, Kind would be delighted. His past legislative efforts include earmark grants to the National Institutes of Health to study "the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes" and the "masturbation habits of old men." Kind's bill goes further. Grants to the states would fund "the capacity to store basic demographic information (including date of birth, gender and geographic area of residence), height, weight and immunization data for each resident of the state." It's information the government promises to use to "help" us make the "right" decisions. How palatable does that sound to you? |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
The Gap-Ohio I would think if those opposed signed a form like this to make their voice heard, it could carry some weight for your Senators to speak to? There must be one being created in all states you would think? To simplify what I am thinking today,"Brother, you are sure getting it from all sides these days down there Michael." Darn shame. I worry about all my friends down there more than you know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, we do live in interesting times, don't we?  Thank you for the link. I would like to think signatures would carry some weight but, based on public opinion figures on major topics before this one which have been completely ignored, I find it unlikley.  |
||
|
N|D|N|C|Lost-Poet Member
since 2009-07-30
Posts 360New Orleans |
Got to love the Supreme Court, ready to beat down those silly bills. I love how America is evolving. Its fighting the inevitable. Its so much more difficult when the population actually thinks for itself. I could not for the life of me find the original quote, nor the author. (If there is one.) I do believe I heard this before, if I didn't just make it up. "This country will not be conquered by foreign armies. It shall be conquered by domestic smiles and ideals." “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” -Henry David Thoreau |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, Mike, this is not the first time the Feds have done such steps. In 1938, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed by the FDR administration, and it allowed the government to regulate, via a quota system, how much a person could grow in their own back yard (so to speak). Even though we were in the middle of the "Great Depression", and families were starving, the were only allowed to grow what the federal government permitted them to. Apparently, the Feds decided that they were permitted to do so under the auspices of the interstate regulation... consider the small, self-sufficient farmer who is told he is only permitted to grow 11 acres of wheat to feed his family, and who is severely punished for planting 23 acres. This farmer is not selling this wheat, he is not taking across state lines. He bought the seed at the local feed store (in the same town), planted it, harvested it, and used it to feed his family... and yet, because it would interfere with interstate sales of wheat (and thus, government control) if everyone grew enough wheat for themselves, the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutionally permissible for the federal government to enact regulations on anyone who was growing food for themselves without any desire or means to transport it across state lines. President Obama is doing nothing that is his own thoughts, or his own ideas... he is simply running our country out of the Progressive Playbook. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
