WARNING! Govt to Nationalize Farming and Outlaw Gardens/Organic Farming!

You give government too much credit in the effectiveness category. And I know - I work for the government.

The government does a terrible job at protecting the health and welfare of the American people and they do a terrible job at serving the American people, but they do an excellent job at protecting the profit margins of rich and the powerful entities (ie: look at the FDA). The rich and the powerful will make sure of it (ie: by lobbying them, influencing them and manipulating them with conflicts of interest, etc...). Even if the government doesn't catch you from those satellite views, chances are those rich corporations (who have a huge interest in eliminating all competition) will and they will report you to the government (and manipulate the government) to ensure the government destroys all competition. To the extent that the government is sloppy at protecting the profit margins of rich and powerful entities, those rich and powerful entities are not and they will more than make up for any governmental sloppiness. Not to mention the government is able to tell if you modify your house without paying the appropriate taxes and then send you a bill based on satellite views (which demonstrates their effectiveness when it's in their best interest). The government is capable of acting effectively, but they only act effectively when it's in their best interest (ie: when government officials have conflicts of interest with large corporations and its in the those officials best interest to act in the best interest of corporations). The government is only ineffective at doing anything that helps the American people.

Another important technology I forgot to mention is the technology that allows computer software to look for certain words within phone conversations and inform the government about those words. They can use that as well to control us and eliminate other economies.

If you want rights, stand up for them.
 
One peanut processing plant gets salmonella and a whole new bureaucracy appears overnight.

Not quite. The authority for the Feds to raid grandma's kitchen, confiscate her pickles made from cukes grown in her garden and canned in her kitchen, goes back at least to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. That's when I became aware of it, not through Alex Jones or Chuck Baldwin, but that hot bed of subversives, the National Honey Board. They prepared a nice little pamplet of the regs for beekeepers, concluding in their FAQ section.
"Thus, beekeepers who extract must register and comply with these regulations."
As usual, there is no way the FDA had funding to effectively enforce their rules, however selective enforcement is usually sufficient to intimidate most individuals.

To take a look at how the Feds believe they have authority over the pickles that never leave grandma's cupbord, take a look at the Interim Rules for BTA2002 starting on page 58899.

"The comments received agreed with FDA's decision in proposed Sec.
1.225 to require all nonexempt facilities to register even if food from
the facility does not enter interstate commerce. They agreed with FDA's
position that having a central database including all facilities that
manufacture/process, pack, or hold food would help achieve the goals of
the Bioterrorism Act. Moreover, the commenters gave additional reasons
why excluding so-called ``intrastate'' facilities from the registration
requirement could be detrimental or inappropriate. Importantly, no
comments presented any reason for excluding facilities from the
registration requirement solely on the basis of whether the food from
the facility enters interstate commerce.
FDA is mindful that its interpretation of the Bioterrorism Act
should not cast doubt on the constitutionality of the statute. (See
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S., 531 U.S. 159
(2001)). The agency has considered the relevant provisions of the
Bioterrorism Act, the comments submitted on this issue, FDA's
responsibilities in implementing the Bioterrorism Act, and the law
interpreting the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I,
section . Based on these considerations, FDA is retaining Sec.
1.225( as proposed, with the result that all facilities that
manufacture/process, pack, or hold food (unless otherwise exempt) must
register even if food from the facility does not enter interstate
commerce."

Even though they set up a situation where grandma is not on a farm (therefore not 'exempt' from BTA2002) and 'processes' her cukes into pickles, they go on and appear magnanimous and and say that, while they could force her to comply, they won't right now. Excerpted from the same Interim Rule.

"(Response) FDA has concluded that private individual residences are
not ``facilities'' for purposes of the registration provision of the
Bioterrorism Act. Under the Bioterrorism Act, the term ``facility''
includes ``any factory, warehouse, or establishment.'' Congress did not
specify any definition for these terms. Under their common meanings,
the terms can include private residences. For example, according to
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1994), the most
relevant definition of ``establishment'' is ``a business firm, club,
institution, or residence, including its possessions and employees.''
However, ``n determining whether Congress has specifically addressed
the question at issue, the court should not confine itself to examining
a particular statutory provision in isolation * * *. It is a
'fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a
statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in
the overall statutory scheme.''' FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 121 (2000). Other parts of the registration
provisions in section 415 of the FD&C Act indicate that Congress only
intended businesses to register, and raise a question as to whether
Congress intended that private individual residences, even though food
is manufactured/processed, packed, or held at such residences, be
considered facilities. For instance, a registrant is required to submit
``the name and address of each facility at which, and all trade names
under which, the registrant conducts business * * * `` (21 U.S.C.
350d(a)(2)). Thus it is unclear whether Congress intended all
individual private residences at which food is manufactured/processed,
packed, or held to be included in the term ``facility.'' Furthermore,
the requirement that a facility submit its ``name'' as well as its
``trade names'' raises a question as to whether Congress intended
``facility'' to include private individual residences since it is
unlikely that a home would have a name or a trade name. Where the words
of the statute are ambiguous, an agency may make a reasonable
interpretation of the statute. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467
U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984); Brown & Williamson, supra, at 132.
Consistent with the language of section 415(a)(2) discussed
previously, the agency concludes that interpreting the term
``facility'' to exclude private individual residences is a reasonable
construction for purposes of registration. This interpretation,
however, does not necessarily preclude a reasonable construction of
other provisions of the FD&C Act to include such residences."


Control of the food supplies has been a long time coming as is apparent from the six year old text above. If 875 is signed into law, it will be yet another step along the path.

XNN
 
Last edited:
From the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:

Many of you have been hearing about HR 875, a food safety bill that has been introduced in Congress. Although much of what has circulated the internet is not accurate, HR 875 does pose serious problems for sustainable farmers and their consumers. Unfortunately, there are already four other "food safety" bills that also pose serious problems: HR 814, HR 759, S 425, and S 510. HR 814 is essentially a mandatory NAIS bill, while the others focus on produce, processed foods and game under FDA jurisdiction.

Consumers who buy nutrient-dense foods from local, sustainable farmers can feel secure about the safety of their food. The same is not true for the majority who buy their food in grocery stores from mass-production industrialized operations. We understand the pressure that Congress faces to improve the safety of that mainstream system. But it is critical that the laws not interfere with the right to choose local foods or with our farmers' ability to raise safer, healthier foods!

Small sustainable farms are fundamentally different from factory farms, and should not be regulated the same way! All of the proposed food safety bills suffer from a "one-size-fits-all" approach. And even though the bills' sponsors might intend for them to apply only to food crossing state lines, the federal agencies regularly take a broader view of their jurisdiction. The FDA's and USDA's past actions clearly show that Congress must place strict limitations on these agencies, or they will impose burdensome and unfair regulations and enforcement actions on small farms.

We don't know which of these bills will move forward to committee hearings -- or perhaps another bill, not yet filed, will be the one to move forward. So we encourage everyone to send a clear message: Protect our farms from bad regulation!
TAKE ACTION

Call your U.S. Representative and Senators. If you do not know who represents you, you can find out at www.congress.org or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask to speak to the staffer who handles food safety issues.

Talk with the staffer about why you support local foods. Tell them you oppose the five bills listed above. Ask that they support a food safety bill that focuses on the real threats to food safety, such as uninspected imports from China and lax inspections of massive slaughterhouses and other factory processing, and ask that any new laws explicitly exempt small farmers. Explain that this issue cannot be left to the agencies' discretion, and you want a clear focus on the broken factory farm system and not on small, sustainable farmers.

UPDATE - CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON NAIS
Last Wednesday, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry held a hearing on NAIS. The questions and comments of several of the Subcommittee members revealed that they view NAIS as a food safety program and critical for animal health in case of a "catastrophic outbreak." One member said, in essence, that the costs to farmers financially and in loss of privacy must be weighed against the "cost in human life" if NAIS isn't implemented.

Yet USDA continues to provide absolutely no scientific evidence to support the claim that NAIS will do anything at all to improve animal health or food safety! What NAIS will do is impose government surveillance and significant expense on animal owners for no real benefit to the public. The only ones who will benefit from NAIS are the meat packers and exporters, tag manufacturers, database managers and other large corporations.

TAKE ACTION #2
You can send written testimony to the Subcommittee before Friday, March 20. Send your testimony to the Hearing Clerk, Jamie Mitchell, at [email protected]

Put "March 11 Hearing - Animal Identification Programs" in the subject line. Keep your comments clear, polite, and concise.

And be sure to send a copy to your Representative and Senators! A copy of your letter to the Subcommittee makes a great follow-up to the phone call we suggest above.
 
Debunked

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_a_new_bill_in_congress_make.html

March 27, 2009
Q:

Would a new bill in Congress make my backyard organic garden illegal?
This one keeps hitting my inbox.
Hello friends and fellow citizens,

BEWARE THE FOOD POLICE! HR 875/S425
IT WOULD NATIONALIZE FARMING- DESTROY ORGANICS- EVEN ATTACK YOUR PRIVATE
GARDEN!
I just stumbled on some pretty disturbing legislation coming out of the Congress of the United States. The bill is HR 875 and it's labeled as the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. At first glance it didn't seem like much. However, there are several, including exposing some pretty scary legislation enclosed in the bill.
In the midst of the financial crisis, it seems that these initiatives are sliding in under the radar. Many people are not even aware of them-
It is imperative that you look into this immediately and with extreme scrutiny as our heath and well-being are threatened!!! If this bill passes, you can say goodbye to organic produce, your Local Farmer’s market and very possibly, the GARDEN IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD!!!!!
Things we are finding in the bill:
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
The bill is monstrous on level after level - the power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory fines for farmers, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals, the easements on their property to allow for warrantless government entry, the stripping away of their property rights, the imposition by the filthy, greedy industrial side of anti-farming international "industrial" standards to independent farms - the only part of our food system that still works, the planned elimination of farmers through all these means.

I encourage you to look into this immediately and help remove this bizarre piece of legislation.

A:

A House bill proposes to split the Food & Drug Administration, creating a separate entity to oversee food safety. It's aimed at food sold in supermarkets and doesn't say anything about organic gardening, pesticides, farmers' markets or that tomato plant in your backyard.
Bookmark and Share

Talk about Internet hysteria. This bill, H.R. 875, introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), has sparked chain e-mails, blog postings and other exclamation-point-filled rants (like the one above), claiming that the legislation targets organic farmers, benefits manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds, and threatens to uproot backyard vegetable gardens across the country. It doesn't.

DeLauro introduced H.R. 875, called the Food Safety Modernization Act, on Feb. 4, and it was promptly referred to House committees. There's no indication as to when it may be brought to the floor for consideration, despite what some blog posts maintain. The stated purpose of the bill is “to establish an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services to be known as the 'Food Safety Administration,' " which would oversee food safety and labeling in the U.S., creating a single government entity in charge of preventing food-borne illnesses. DeLauro's press release announcing the legislation, introduced after the peanut butter salmonella outbreak in the U.S., said that “FDA would be split into an agency responsible for food safety (the Food Safety Administration) and another responsible for regulation of drugs and devices. This move creates an agency solely focused on protecting the public through better regulation of the food supply.”

The bill has 41 cosponsors and has been endorsed by major food and consumer safety organizations, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit organization that advocates for clean water and safe food and is headed by a woman who used to work for Public Citizen, the consumer group founded by Ralph Nader. It has posted a fact sheet on H.R. 875 on its site, disputing rumors about "food police."

The legislation stipulates that the new FSA (Food Safety Administration) would set safety regulations for food establishments and "food production facilities" and would be able to inspect such facilities. Its regulations also would pertain to imported foods. The e-mail posted above and others say that the definition of "food production facility" is so broad that it could include backyard gardens. The bill says: "The term 'food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation." It seems quite a stretch to think that anyone's personal vegetable patch would be considered a "farm, ranch or orchard." First Lady Michelle Obama showed no signs of concern last week as she broke ground on a sizable 1,100-foot garden plot on the White House lawn. Organic, of course.

The e-mail above argues that DeLauro's bill "[e]ffectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic." We're not sure how exactly a bill would criminalize something it doesn't mention, but the e-mail is correct in that the word "organic" is nowhere to be found. Another Internet posting more alarmingly claims: "Bill will require organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to 'make sure there is no danger to the public food supply.' " But the quoted phrase isn't in this bill. Nor is there any mention of chemical versus organic fertilizers or "poisonous insect sprays," or, for that matter, pesticides in general.

The only mention of fertilizers we could find was this, requiring that the FSA create regulations to: "include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water." The idea that "fertilizer use" would not include organic fertilizers is pure speculation well beyond what the legislation calls for.

Also, organic farming is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under its "National Organic Program," not the FDA.

And It Gets Even More Hysterical

E-mails and blog postings claim that the agricultural giant Monsanto will benefit greatly from the bill; some say the often-protested company was the main lobbyist, and still others say DeLauro's husband "works for Monsanto." He doesn't.

DeLauro's spouse, Stanley Greenberg, is chairman and CEO of Greenberg-Quinlan Research Inc., a public issues research and polling firm. The company does surveys. And public relations work. Monsanto was one of the firm's clients. Greenberg is a pollster, not a lobbyist or a Monsanto employee, and he just released a memoir on his life as a pollster to five world leaders, including Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela.

Also, there is nothing in the bill about "GPS tracking" of animals, as the e-mail above states, and not a peep about "seed banking."

Small Farm Concern

Small farmers, however, may well have concerns about this bill. Food & Water Watch's fact sheet acknowledges that there's always a worry that government regulation of food production will adversely affect small farms, which can't absorb the possible costs of abiding by regulation as easily as big food producers can. "The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved," the site says. It goes on to say that other bills, not H.R. 875, that have been introduced could create problems for small operations, such as one that requires electronic record-keeping and registration fees with the FDA.

Another group called the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which supports "sustainable farming and direct farm-to-consumer transactions," raises several concerns about DeLauro's legislation and how it could affect small farms and in particular, producers of raw milk, which the FDA has declared to be unfit for consumption. But the group states that "much of what has circulated the internet is not accurate," and nowhere in its criticism of the legislation does it say organic farming would be outlawed or home gardeners would face regulations.

We suppose in the grand realm of all that's possible, or more likely a futuristic B movie, federal bureaucrats could decide that public safety calls for inspections of every backyard garden in the nation, leading everyday citizens to surreptitiously cultivate tomato plants in a closet with a sunlamp, lest they get busted by the cops. But we kinda doubt it.

– by Lori Robertson

Full disclosure: The author has an organic vegetable garden.
Sources
111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 875.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn). “DeLauro Assails Full-Scale Breakdown of Food Safety System and Introduces New FDA Reform Legislation,” press release, 4 Feb. 2009.

Food & Water Watch. Background on H.R. 875, accessed 26 March 2009.

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. HR 875 – The Federal Take-Over of Food Regulation, 13 March 2009.

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Flawed Food Safety Bills in Congress, accessed 26 March 2009.
 
My Reply to Lori Robertson

Dear Lori,

while you are correct that this bill would not effect backyard gardens and does not involve GPS tracking of animals, you are incorrect in other statements. As to the GPS tracking, there are 4 or 5 bills on food safety working their way through Congress right now, and one of them mandates RFID chipping of livestock, not GPS tracking of them. That's obviously where that came from.

That this bill loads tons of inspections, fees and paperwork on food production, processing, storage and transportation facilities is very worry some. Industrial agriculture practices caused the problems we've seen like Mad Cow and the peanut salmonella outbreaks. Yet the solution proposed is a one size fits all that will be imposed on small farmers, thus driving them out of business. ditto, those that grow organic food for the health food industry. Do recall that regulations were passed that allowed non-organic food to be labeled as such and that prevented real organic food from being able to get that label.

Some of the keys that are hidden from view are that the FDA has labeled seed to be "food" in one of their regulations. This bill lists manure as a contaminant, but not pesticides or chemical fertilizers. This new administration would dictate what is put on crops and when. You can bet that will be Roundup and chemical fertilizers, but never manure. It also addresses contamination in processing. How that effects seeds is that it would require a separate production line for each seed line, one that uses "approved" equipment and would cost $1 - $1.5m per possessing line. It also mandates $1m fines PER INFRACTION (like in paperwork) and surprise inspections by a new government bureaucracy established for the purpose. The effect on family farms should be obvious. Monsanto has been driving them out of business for years via lawsuits when their pollen drifts over Big AG fences into small farms. They are currently going after seed separators in a number of states. Do keep in mind that much in this bill is being left incredibly vague on purpose, to be filled in by this new administration. It is also interesting that food produced overseas can (and will) get a waiver on having to follow these regulations.

Two things that will make this a lot clearer is that Rep. Rosa DeLauro's husband has Monsanto as a customer, and that Obama's pick to head USDA is a huge supporter of industrial agriculture and genetically modified seeds, so much so that he has gone against the will of his constituents in Iowa when he was governor to bring in GM crops when they wanted them kept out.

This legislation was written by Monsanto and kept intentionally vague on purpose. It's being sold with fear, to solve a problem Big AG created, It's purpose is to wipe out competition - specifically family farms, heirloom seeds and organic food and in so doing control the food supply in the name of corporate profit. Please do some research on Monsanto and their scummy tactics.

For more specific information on this issue, please see: "A Solemn Walk Through HR-875" at:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/A-solemn-walk-through-HR-8-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090314-67.html

A correction to your article would be a great service to the people of this country.

thanks,

Nathan
 
My Reply to Lori Robertson

Dear Lori,

while you are correct that this bill would not effect backyard gardens and does not involve GPS tracking of animals, you are incorrect in other statements. As to the GPS tracking, there are 4 or 5 bills on food safety working their way through Congress right now, and one of them mandates RFID chipping of livestock, not GPS tracking of them. That's obviously where that came from.

That this bill loads tons of inspections, fees and paperwork on food production, processing, storage and transportation facilities is very worry some. Industrial agriculture practices caused the problems we've seen like Mad Cow and the peanut salmonella outbreaks. Yet the solution proposed is a one size fits all that will be imposed on small farmers, thus driving them out of business. ditto, those that grow organic food for the health food industry. Do recall that regulations were passed that allowed non-organic food to be labeled as such and that prevented real organic food from being able to get that label.

Some of the keys that are hidden from view are that the FDA has labeled seed to be "food" in one of their regulations. This bill lists manure as a contaminant, but not pesticides or chemical fertilizers. This new administration would dictate what is put on crops and when. You can bet that will be Roundup and chemical fertilizers, but never manure. It also addresses contamination in processing. How that effects seeds is that it would require a separate production line for each seed line, one that uses "approved" equipment and would cost $1 - $1.5m per possessing line. It also mandates $1m fines PER INFRACTION (like in paperwork) and surprise inspections by a new government bureaucracy established for the purpose. The effect on family farms should be obvious. Monsanto has been driving them out of business for years via lawsuits when their pollen drifts over Big AG fences into small farms. They are currently going after seed separators in a number of states. Do keep in mind that much in this bill is being left incredibly vague on purpose, to be filled in by this new administration. It is also interesting that food produced overseas can (and will) get a waiver on having to follow these regulations.

Two things that will make this a lot clearer is that Rep. Rosa DeLauro's husband has Monsanto as a customer, and that Obama's pick to head USDA is a huge supporter of industrial agriculture and genetically modified seeds, so much so that he has gone against the will of his constituents in Iowa when he was governor to bring in GM crops when they wanted them kept out.

This legislation was written by Monsanto and kept intentionally vague on purpose. It's being sold with fear, to solve a problem Big AG created, It's purpose is to wipe out competition - specifically family farms, heirloom seeds and organic food and in so doing control the food supply in the name of corporate profit. Please do some research on Monsanto and their scummy tactics.

For more specific information on this issue, please see: "A Solemn Walk Through HR-875" at:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/A-solemn-walk-through-HR-8-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090314-67.html

A correction to your article would be a great service to the people of this country.

thanks,

Nathan

Thank You for writing calmly and backing up claims with some decent links in your response, we need more of that around here. :)

Explication and in depth analysis always taste better than a headline and a gut response :)

I look forward to reading your oped info
 
It is very much like the small Mom and Pop gas stations here in California. In the late 1980's the state of California, environmentalists and most likely with the backing of large oil companies, determined that underground gas tanks were leaking and cantaminating the ground water. A law was passed requiring all gas stations to replace underground tanks with double walled tanks. The cost? About a quarter Million dollars each. A majority of all the small operators could not afford to replace the tanks and closed down. The big chains and oil company stations could afford the replacement costs and survived. There are very few Mom and Pop stations in California now.
Some years later a new study found that the tank leakage problem was far less the they originally thought and it was the oil leaching from the blacktop highways that was the real source of the contamination but to cover their butts the refused to back down.

No the original bill did not outlaw small independant operators but guess what? They are nearly all gone.
Wow how did that happen!
 
More info to add

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZL6q-3LOw

America's small farmers are under attack through a series of bills presented under the guise of "food safety." I don't want to lose my freedom to grow, buy and eat real foods. Let's fight for our small farmers who not only need our protection and support, but actual freeing from government intrusion, control and harm. This also means you will need the permission of federal government to grow a garden! Rosa Delaura of Connecticut is behind this bill because her husband is working for Monsanto.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS PEOPLE & SPREAD THE WORD:
** Contact your representatives AND local newspaper: http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=7499
** Another easy way to contact your representatives:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
** Share this video

Sources of Information:
http://breakthematrix.com/node/34557

Please help spread the word!

And thanks for such an amazing response to my "Crash the Federal Reserve" ( http://www.breakthematrix.com/node/34437 ) post - we're up to 47 co-sponsors!
Last edited by Magicman; Yesterday at 11:03 PM.
 
Liberals aren't going to take this seriously. Michelle Obama is an "organic mom" and there's a huge movement to put an organic garden on the White House Lawn.

Wow, your right. They are controlling these Obamabots so well. They fool them through public perception they did that just recently where they put Michelle planting the garden! This was done intentionally and they all talk about how cute that is yet when you show the truth they shrug it off.

This is so New World Order and a systematic approach at manipulation and brainwashing at this point it's like they know that contingency is under their control. So, it confuses them and Obama does the EXACT opposite by destroying Small Farming/Gardening with these bills.

They know what there doing, it's all about fooling the masses which there doing a great job of. Obama is the worst kind of president that people are following a cult of personality which pacifies them completely; this wouldn't have been as possible even several years ago this type of control. We're literally a nation where the masses are under sleep and control of this agenda.
 
I found this on facebook (Stop HR875 and Save Small and Organic Farms group):

Message from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree

Dear John,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback on this very important issue.

As you may know, I have been a staunch supporter of organic farming and the local food movement for a long time. As someone who once owned my own small organic farm on North Haven, I truly understand your concerns with this piece of legislation. I want you to know that I am working hard to make sure small and organic farmers are safe under any new food safety laws.

Any food safety bill that moves through Congress this year must take organic and small farmers' concerns into account. This is why I have decided to remove myself as a co-sponsor of H.R. 875. Several bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress aimed at addressing food safety in the wake of the recent peanut salmonella outbreak. Although I am an advocate for food safety, these bills that affect small and organic farmers could have unintended consequences.

I have carefully reviewed your suggestions, and have started looking into ways to proactively protect the Maine farming community. To this end, I have been working closely with Russell Libby, a good friend and Executive Director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA). We have been talking about ways to ensure that our foods are safe, while also making sure that the local farming movement can continue to grow.

Russell has put together information on the several food safety bills that have been introduced in the 111th Congress. If you would like additional information about these or other bills, please visit MOFGA's website: http://www.mofga.org/Programs/Publi...Statements/FoodSafety/tabid/1102/Default.aspx. I also thought you would be interested to read a related Bangor Daily News article on the current food safety debate: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/102645.html.

I appreciate your continued comments as we work towards better food safety. Thank you for taking the time to engage in the legislative process and inform me of your thoughts on this extremely important issue. Please know that I am on your side and that I will only vote for a bill that protects the small, organic farms of Maine - and I truly look forward to working with you.

Thanks again for being in touch, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,
Chellie Pingree
Member of Congress

We should thank her.
 
Perhaps somebody can point out the parts where any farms are to be nationalized or any bans of gardens/ organic farming. I can't find it.
Just to remind you all how government loopholes work, I'll give you the example of Chicago and its supposed gun ban.
Guns aren't illegal to own in Chicago, contrary to popular belief. The law states that they have to be registered with the local police department.
So what's the deal, then, you ask?
The Chicago police quit registering guns over 20 years ago.

The moral of the story is: Sometimes what IS said is not as important as what ISN'T said.
"Give them an inch and they will take a yard," might also apply.
 
Back
Top