I have an idea to decorate the side of our unfinished log home this spring.  A very large banner in patriotic red, white, and blue reading something as follows:



ALL NOSY, PRYING, COMPLAINING MEDDLERS

GO

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
ANYONE ELSE? WELCOME!




So what's that supposed to mean? Boycott the Census 2010. (Or just answer the one (1) and only question provided by the Constitution: How many in your household).

All census bureau agents/hacks/busy-bodies are not allowed on our property, and additionally, any other potential wannabe meddlers. If the shoe fits, wear it.


UPDATE 3-19-10

After making the above post, and responding to my brother, Clint's, comment below, we clicked over to the U.S. patent & trademark site to check out the registration mark of the United States Census Bureau. It appears that we (or our stats) are more valuable than we're being told.  We're forced to comply by law with no compensation under the auspices that this is merely a 'head' count of sorts...and an 'opportunity' to receive govt. cash...with grave assurances that our info will be kept private. What's your definition of private? Better yet, what's the Govt's definition of 'private'...could it be 'private' enterprise perhaps? Then today I found this article below:

Privatizing The Census
While Perverting Its Purposes By Jim Kirwan
3-19-10  

Taking the senders on the envelope in which the Census arrived and trying to find out who these agencies are and what they have to do with the Census; things got very foggy, very quickly. The U. S. Department of Commerce is the parent agency for the U. S. Census Bureau. The Economics and Statistics Administration is responsible for examining the 2010 Census and its effect upon the economy and as far as the web is concerned The U. S. Census Bureau just hires people to actually take the census.   Nowhere is there a clear budget for the 2010 Census; as to its costs: All we know about this is that an $89.5 million contract for the next nine years was given to IBM (which was not announced by the government); who probably devised the questionnaire and will run the results through their computers.

To try to figure out what the costs of this census really are; is to enter a Labyrinth of government agency connections and overlaps that leave you wondering why so many different agencies all have their hands in each others pockets: and why this particular project that is supposed to happen only once every ten years, requires so much of the attention of so many bureaucrats; and why apparently the Census is now an annual event, as opposed to only once every ten years?  

Here's part of the latest spin from the US Department of Commerce:   "WASHINGTON, March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As 2010 Census forms arrive in more than 120 million mailboxes across the country this week, several 20-foot-high replicas of the form began touring the nation today. The U.S. Census Bureau's Giant 2010 Census Form Tour is part of a large-scale effort to encourage households to take 10 minutes to fill out and mail back their census forms.   (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)

The forms will be on display at popular public sites in a number of major cities this week, such as Times Square in New York, Union Station in Washington and Daley Square in Chicago. Other cities include Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis and San Francisco.   SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau (1)   So the US Department of Commerce is holding a huge bash to promote Census 2010: But at what cost, and with what oversight to insure that what Commerce, the Economics & Statistics Administration & the Census Bureau say will happen to what you are being forced to send in?  

It seems that there really are no lines between the almost completely privatized US Department of Commerce and the government. There are also no clear accounting procedures for either the costs or for what happens to the data collected; in terms of everything that is being collected which does NOT involve the counting heads. That's critical because that is the only reason for there to be a U. S. Census Bureau: to count US Citizens in this country, once every ten years! So why is the US Census Bureau involved with Foreign Markets; in terms of their official logos?   "How much is the COMMERCE Department offering for your personal information?   Read more

And just found essentially the same article with links highlighted.


Here's another article citing the Constitutional grounds for census and the obscuring of the intentions:

The Federal Government Distorts the Purpose of the Census

On their web-page, the Census Bureau explains the purpose of the Census as follows:

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandates a headcount of everyone residing in the United States.  The population totals determine each state’s Congressional representation.  The numbers also affect funding in your community and help inform decision makers about how your community is changing.

The reader will note that the federal government’s statement of purpose does not comport with the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.  Since decisions about our communities are not within the class of powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 1), the reader will not find a reference to it in the limited powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 2).

No More Census Long Forms

On their web-page, the Census Bureau states the long form used in the past has been replaced with a new short form:

In the past, most households received a short-form questionnaire, while one household in six received a long form that contained additional questions and provided more detailed socioeconomic information about the population.

The 2010 Census will be a short-form only census and will count all residents living in the United States as well as ask for name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure – taking just minutes to complete.

The more detailed socioeconomic information is now collected through the American Community Survey. The survey provides current data about your community every year, rather than once every 10 years. It is sent to a small percentage of the population on a rotating basis throughout the decade. No household will receive the survey more often than once every five years.

The reader will note that the additional information requested on the 2010 form will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

The American Community Survey

As stated above, the Census Bureau will be using the American Community Survey to extract personal data that it previously received on the old long form.  Once again, this information will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

Authority for the Census and the American Community Survey

On their web-site, the Census Bureau claims the American people are “required by law” to provide the information requested on either form and our response is “mandatory.”

For the Census, they cite the provision of the Constitution referenced above as their authority to request the information.

For the American Community Survey, they cite Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 141 and 193 as their authority to request the information.

Section 141 (d) states, in part: …the Secretary, in the year 1985 and every 10 years thereafter, shall conduct a mid-decade census of population in such form and content as he may determine…

Section 141 (e) (2) states: Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts.

Section 141 (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

Section 193 states: In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census provided for by this chapter, the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.

The first thing reader should note is the difference between the statement of authority for the 2 surveys.  The Census falls under the Constitution while the American Community Survey is merely based on a statute passed by Congress.

The second thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the reference to a mid-decade census of population.  There is no constitutional authority for mid-decade census.  See again Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The third thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the information obtained from the mid-decade census cannot be used for the constitutional purpose of the actual Census.

The fourth thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the mid-decade census is being used for housing, and matters relating to population and housing.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power concerning these subjects.

This takes us to the other section cited as the authority for the American Community Survey.  Section 193 restricts census surveys and the collection of preliminary and supplementary statistics…to the main topic of the census…necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.  Constitutionally, the only topic of a census is a head count for apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power for any other census.  The other ones referenced in section 193 fail to meet the constitutional topic of the only census enumerated in the Constitution.

Note: See again the first 2 constitutional principles discussed at the beginning of this article and then apply them to the American Community Survey.

Penalty Provisions for Failure to Comply with Either Survey Request

On their web-site, the Census Bureau states the penalty provision for failing to comply with either survey request is found in Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221.

Pursuant to this section, refusing to provide the requested information or neglecting to complete either survey subjects you to a fine of not more than $100.00.  Willfully giving information that is false subjects you to a fine of not more than $500.00.

Then, in what I believe is a blatant attempt to misrepresent federal law and install fear in the hearts and minds of the American people so they will provide the requested information, the Census Bureau included the following statement after their reference to the section 221 penalties referenced above:

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.

A review of Title 18 shows it is entitled:“CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”

Section 3559 is entitled: “Sentencing classification of offenses.”  Section (a) states: “Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

Section 3571 is entitled: “Sentence of fine.  Section (a) states: “A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.”  Section (b) states in part: “…an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—(7)for an infraction, not more than $5,000.”  This is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau that matches the provision in section 3559 above.


The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559.  Unless an individual has been charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the Census and the crime is classified as an infraction, this $5,000.00 fine does not apply.  Thus, their assertion that these sections changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is…you fill in the blank.  In my mind, it’s a blatant lie that borders on fraud.

My Rules and Plan of Attack

Here are the 3 basic rules I follow when I receive requests for personal information on the Census and/or American Community Survey forms.

* I never destroy or deface the forms.

* I never put false information on the forms.

* I never partially complete the forms.  If I am going to make the assertion that the requested information does not apply to me or the requested information exceeds the government’s constitutional authority to request the information, I return the form with a cover letter explaining why.

Here is my plan of attack for the Census and American Community Survey forms.

When I receive the 2010 Census form I will return it with a cover letter.  In the letter I will give them the number of people residing in the house and state that pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that is the only information they are empowered to request.  My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.  Period end of story.

When I receive the American Community Survey form, I will return it with a cover letter.  The letter will simply state that since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers and that document does not grant them the general power to request the information, I am under no constitutional obligation to provide it.

If they attempt to distort the law and threaten me with the bogus $5,000.00 fine, as discussed and exposed above, I will send a letter to the Justice Department and request prosecution of the individuals making the threat.

The Coup de Gras to their Unconstitutional Information Requests

Even though I do not like to cite court cases, I either attach this one to my letter or hold it in reserve to support my refusal to comply with their bogus requests because it usually ends the discussion and any threat of a fine.

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [insert Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.  We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.  As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others.  Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’” [The bracketed words added for clarification]

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

If the federal government had been granted the general power to make inquires into the private affairs of the American people through the Census or a congressional mandated survey, then the Supreme Court could not have made this statement.

Now that we know the federal government was not granted the constitutional authority to make general inquires into our private affairs under the umbrella of the Census or a survey, I hope the American people will consider engaging in some civil disobedience and refuse to comply with these unconstitutional requests. Read entire article
8 Comments
 
 
Picture
From the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance:

The USDA has announced that it is dropping NAIS!
2/5/2010

This is a major victory for the grassroots!!   Thank you to the thousands of people who called, wrote, organized meetings, and more.  Dozens of organizations, from across the country and the full range of the political spectrum, worked together on this common cause.
And we succeeded in making our voices heard.

USDA has stated that it is refocusing its efforts on “a new, flexible framework” that will apply only to animals moved in interstate commerce and encourage the use of “lower-cost” technology.  During today’s conference call with USDA, I asked whether the agency would continue using federal funding to pressure states to adopt the program through cooperative agreements.  In response, Secretary Vilsack stated that USDA has gotten a “failing grade” on NAIS and that he does NOT intend to try to implement it through the back door.

You can read more details from USDA at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf

We still have more work in front of us.  As USDA develops its new framework, we must be involved and vocal, so that agribusiness does not develop yet another high-tech, big-industry boondoggle.  We must be active at the state level to ensure that the state agencies do not implement unnecessary and burdensome rules.  And we must work to roll back the unfair requirements that have already been implemented in Wisconsin and Michigan.  Ultimately, it is up to us – as animal owners, homesteaders, farmers, ranchers, and consumers -- to build a positive vision for our farms and our food.

Thank you all!

Support Our Work Please help us be a strong voice for independent agriculture by joining or donating here


And more from OCA:

Victory of the Week

USDA Drops "Big Brother" National Animal ID Program

Under pressure from small farmers and organic consumers, the US Department of Agriculture announced on February 5, 2010, that it is suspending its controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and offering a new approach to tracking animal disease and food contamination. This is a major victory for the Organic Consumers Association, our allies, and organic farmers and ranchers, who have complained that the USDA's goal of tagging every farm animal in country wouldn't do anything to prevent disease, would be unnecessary and expensive for small and organic farmers, and couldn't be enforced without violations of privacy and religion.

Already, the implementation of NAIS in Wisconsin has resulted in an Amish farmer and a small-scale cattle rancher being charged and fined for not registering, and in Michigan a cattle farmer's herd was put under quarantine and forcibly tagged when he wouldn't submit to the state's mandatory NAIS program.

Go to OCA's No NAIS campaign page for more information



Add Comment
 
 
On July 30, a week ago, the House passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act and it's now headed for the Senate. They tried to pass it on July 29 but it failed to pass. On Aug. 3, I checked a govt. tracker site and this is what info they had:

Aug 3, 2009: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Related:See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Votes:Jul 29, 2009: This bill failed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 280 Ayes, 150 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.
Jul 30, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 283 Ayes, 142 Nays, 8 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

I would argue that this is VERY controversial legislation, and I really have to wonder at the suspension of House rules to "cut debate short" and pass the bill. This Washington Post article mentioned it and I just received this update from an Organic Consumers Association e-mail:


On July 30, 2009, H.R. 2749 was debated and voted on again, this time with only a simple majority required for passage. It passed. See how your Congressperson voted here.

During the debate, several of the concerns of organic and small producers were raised:   Rep. Sam Farr addressed Rep. John Dingell saying, "I have deep concerns ... about the fee structure in the measure, which would charge a farm family making jams or syrup or cheese the same fee as a processing plant owned by a multinational corporation employing hundreds or thousands or workers.  This strikes me as not only unfair but contrary to federal farm policy that has encouraged small and mid-sized family farms to get into small scale value-added enterprises to survive economically.  I am seeking an assurance ... that a more progressive fee structure will be found that does not inhibit our farm families from taking advantage of new markets.

"As a member of the Organic Caucus, I also have concerns about the interplay between this bill and the National Organic Program.  Is it the Chairman's [Rep. Dingell's] understanding that this bill would not establish any requirements for organically produced or processed products which are in conflict with the requirements established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the USDA's National Organic Program regulations?"   Rep. Earl Blumenauer joined Rep. Farr saying, "I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman [Rep. Dingell] to address some of the concerns of small and organic farmers. ... I am concerned about the impact of this bill on the small farmers in my state and across the country. Over sixty percent of Oregon farmers make their living from a farm that is smaller than fifty acres. I echo Mr. Farr’s concerns regarding the fairness of some of these requirements for these farmers.

"I am also concerned about the language regarding interaction between wildlife, livestock and farming practices. Biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm and not something we should penalize farmers for. Last week in my state, staff from Oregon State University and the Xerces Society led a tour to four diverse Oregon farms where farmers are utilizing techniques such as naturescaping, floodplain restoration and natural hedgerows to encourage crop health, control pests and invasive species, and enhance soil quality. I am concerned that these practices, which are cost effective and bring benefits to the farm and local wildlife, would be in jeopardy under this legislation.

"I believe we should target reform and safety efforts towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreaks, rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides and other carbon intensive farming techniques.

"I would like assurance from the Chairman that as the Food and Drug Administration develops these criteria, they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers."

In addition, many small and mid-sized farmers do not sell direct to consumer but the identity of their product is preserved through the supply chain and is on the product when it is bought by the consumer. HR 2749 fails to include an exemption for “identity-preserved” products that specify the identity and location of the farm all the way to the consumer.

These farmers should get the same exemptions that have been provided to grains, oilseeds, hay, honey, sugar, cocoa, and other segments of agriculture that have been recognized in the bill because of their political clout.

And the debate continues:

OCA Web Forum Food Safety Debate

The following is posted by OCA web forum member, Kevin, a Horticultural Scientist from the University of Georgia:

"Who is the government trying to protect? Not us! This is all just another way to assure the big trade corporations can continue to import poisoned produce. Think about it, this is just going to make it tougher for American farmers to make a living. The majority of our produce is imported as it is, about 60%, why should we have to put out more money to make even less profit?... Go out and tell everyone you know to buy local or at least American grown crops. Eventually, these trade companies will go out of business and we will regain a foothold on our food market..."

And go HERE for more discussion and info on the Hr 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act.
Add Comment
 
Spring Updates 05/17/2009
 
Picture

Sorry for the absence, but you know how busy Spring can be! The photo above is a view of our 'backyard' now as the leaves are just coming in. Nothing like Spring Green!

So what have we Green Pioneers been up to? We're now making our first go at brooding our own chicks. The children are loving this new form of entertainment! We've also been out foraging fiddleheads that have grown prolifically in the woods on our land!

We have some updates and info to share with you, too!

1. Update on NAIS

From the Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance:

Federal Updates USDA Announces Locations For Listening Sessions USDA is holding a series of listening sessions to get input on NAIS.  USDA and Congress appear to be headed straight towards a mandatory NAIS program.  These listening sessions are an important opportunity to show the widespread opposition to NAIS and to get press attention on this issue!  PLEASE COME! 

You can also submit written comments online - more information is below.

Read Rest of Article

Picture
2.  Natural Care
These are a couple of great sites I've found recently on Natural Horse Care...as well as natural care for other pets and livestock:

Natural Horse Magazine
Shirley's Wellness Cafe


I'm developing a section for this site dedicated to alternative (i.e. non-allopathic) care for pets and livestock. We'll also provide exposure to animal abuses perpetrated by the factory farms and big-pharma companies. There's much we need to understand that many a vet and/or extension agent will not tell us...either through ignorance or slave-to-the-industry mentality.

Vaccines Dangerous to your animals!
Natural Hoof Care and Rehab
Natural Hoof Care.net
Benefits of Paddock Paradise!
Dirt and Clay good for horses and other animals? Check it out!

Picture
3.  A New Challenge!

Freedom Gardens has a new challenge brewing for 'green' gardeners! Here's their intro:


Collective Growing and Harvesting Effort

Path to Freedom and Freedom Gardens aim to show people that they don’t need acres of space to begin growing food, and that gardening can reduce your food bills, food miles and create a more sustainable way of life right in your own backyard.

Last year we launched the successful 100-foot Diet Challenge encouraging individuals and families to eat at least one homegrown meal a week. The overwhelming response led to the creation of Freedom Gardens, an online social networking community of nearly 2,500 gardening enthusiasts who are fed up with foreign oil, frequent food miles and high food prices—and who want to band together with like-minded folks.

So, this year, we want to expand the scope and impact of the 100-foot Diet Challenge and think big--
really big! Are you ready for the 100-foot Diet Challenge 2.0?

1 MILLION POUND FREEDOM HARVEST CHALLENGE

Read More!


Add Comment
 
 

Well, let's just say that small farmers and backyard gardeners can rest assured that someone got the message about HR 875 and outlawing organic farming.

Why?

Because now they're trying to silence the bleating sheeple into submission by exclaiming that "this was never their intention"...that this hoop-la over HR 875 is just a "myth" and that they have nothing against backyard gardeners..or even organic farmers. They're wondering what "all the ruckus" is about in blog-land. This bill wasn't meant to "hurt" anyone but to "protect" us from large corporate farmers and contamination. What large corporate farmers? The ones beholden to, manipulated and controlled by global, bloated corporate agribusinesses like Monsanto...the company Rosa DeLauro's husband works for?

[From Wikipedia: Stanley Bernard Greenberg (born May 10, 1945) is a leading Democratic pollster and political strategist who has advised the campaigns of the Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, as well as hundreds of other candidates and organizations in the United States British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is the founder and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a polling and consulting firm, and co-founder, with James Carville and Bob Shrum, of Democracy Corps, a non-profit organization which produces left-leaning political strategy. He is married to current Rep. Rosa DeLauro, representative from the Third District from Connecticut.

Greenberg's corporate clients include British Petroleum, British Airways, Monsanto and General Motors. [1] ]


Don't believe it for a second...and we need to keep beating the drums to these politicians. R-Rosa DeLauro, whether she cares to admit it or not, has a major conflict of interest in even introducing a bill like this in the first place given that her husband works for Monsanto. She innocently claims that her hubby has nothing to do with this bill. Fine. It really doesn't matter who her husband is. But 'facts is facts' as they say. The verbiage of HR 875 speaks for itself. We are all fully aware of Monsanto's and all their related cohorts' dirty underhanded tricks. We can see what they have already done to small farmers in other countries around the world. We just witnessed their $1.4 billion CASH purchase of Seminis Seed Co.

We canNOT allow these people to deter and make us feel like idiots because we're alarmed over their outrageous deeds and misdeeds. Crank up the heat and keep it cranked. If Rosa DeLaura means what she says, then she will scrap this bill altogether. Note: she doesn't mention anything about not wanting to harm small farmers. She also never mentions backyard gardeners who might want to sell their produce or save their own seeds either.

Just take a stroll through the bill HR 875 and its implications. It's ALL right there. This frog won't suddenly turn into a prince. Rather it's like boiling the frog in the pot. Put a frog into warm water then slowly turn up the heat until the frog is cooked. That's how these people operate...and the only thing DeLauro's TRULY shocked about is the fact that people are actually onto their scheme...I mean, it's always worked so well before!

1 Comment
 
Seeds of Hope 04/07/2009
 

Recently my friend, Sherry, alerted us to the Monsanto buy-out of Seminis Seed Co. and how this was affecting one of our local seed companies here in Maine that we use...Fedco.

Fedco Seeds gave the run-down in this article about Monsanto's 1.4 billion dollar CASH payment for Seminis as well as assuming all of their unpaid debt. They do an excellent job of explaining the ramifications of what this means for seed companies and why this is such an ominous problem as they begin to explain the question:

Why Drop Monsanto?

The current industrial seed system rests upon the unholy trinity of biotechnology, corporate concentration and intellectual property rights. Each is mutually reinforcing and none of the three stands without the support of the other two.
Read Article

To me just the fact that Monsanto can slap down that amount of cash in the first place tells us something right there. Then the fact that they would slap down that kind of cash for a SEED COMPANY tells us even more. Please don't even begin to imply that Monsanto has no agenda here.

What I was so heartened to see, though, was that when Fedco polled their customers, they received an overwhelming response...and the major response was not to compromise...which means continuing to provide honest to goodness untainted-by-Monsanto seeds. Which also boils down to telling  Monsanto to take a hike!

Here are some the  responses Fedco provided in the article:

Fedco Drops Monsanto/Seminis

We responded to the news by polling our customers. Should we drop the Seminis/Monsanto line, phase it out, keep it but give it its own customer code, or maintain it without change? We received an unprecedented 1,157 responses. 54.8% voted for us to drop the Seminis/Monsanto line immediately, and an additional 17% to phase it out over time. Many included thought-provoking comments such as these:
• Drop the Seminis varieties unless this puts the entire coop in jeopardy. • Every dollar that goes to Monsanto does not go to a producer who is protective of agriculture, our world, our health. • You don’t need to sell your soul for a Sunsugar. • Let the customers decide! • Phase out as you find quality replacements. • Call upon my sense of adventure to try the new varieties you find! • Unbury the supplier codes and make them more prominent. • Give your customers a choice on their purchases for a transitional period…tax the b…ds for the public good…and spread the money like manure for our new crop of seed providers—breeders, growers and distributors. • It’s a hard thing to fight a Monsanto when we’re so deeply embedded in a system that produces Monsantos. Sort of like Jefferson hating slavery while owning slaves. • Buyers’ choice is real democracy. We, the buyers either keep them in business or put them out of business. • Double the retail price for Monsanto seed and send the additional receipts to those who suffer from Monsanto like Percy Schmeiser. • Monsanto should be Rounded Up and composted. • We’ll survive on the sweet tastiness of the moral high ground.
Read Article

I'm sure this decision's  going to cause Fedco some major readjustments, no small amount of disappointments, a bit of confusion, a likely hit to the bottom line...but at the end of the day, that's OK! Let's not compormise" was the resounding sentiment...and for that sentiment alone among so many is a triumph in and of itself.

The other thing that's really great is that so many more people out there are truly gettin' it...including myself! I haven't understood the whole corporate food dilemma entirely..it's taken me some time to connect all the dots. And I've learned so much about what's at stake not only for us here in America, but for all of us around the world... in really only the past couple of months or so. But now our children are gettin' it too...so much in fact that they call Wal-Mart 'slavery food' and want to pray for small farmers around the world when we say our bedtime prayers. That totally warms my heart and gives me some real hope for the next generation!

So "You GO Fedco" ... we're here to support you! And I hope this can encourage and strengthen all of us to bravely stand firm with our local food, farm, garden, and seed producers and providers as well!

Add Comment
 
 

Please tell me... is this your idea of limited government? Is it Republican conservatism...or Democratic liberalism? Or would a more appropriate definition be "Cloaked Corporate Fascism"...what do you think? Is this "protection" or is it really "policing"...where does one draw the line? Should we ask the regular person on the street in Russia, China, or Cuba what they think it is...or where they see the line being drawn?

I sent this e-mail out today:

I can't believe that Olympia Snowe calls herself a Republican... which used to imply limited govt. WHICH also means I voted for her. I'm absolutely cringing inside. She's been nothing but a complete trouble-maker! Now look at who she's in cahoots with!! Of course, the Rockefellers are long entrenched up here in ME so, no wonder...


Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data. —By Steve Aquino

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

Read Article Mother Jones News


Well, we can't have all these people out here questioning Obama's eligibility for the Pres. demanding him to show us "your papers, please" as well as coordinating Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties...among stirring up all sorts of other craziness...like opposing NAIS, HR 875, (BTW, turns out another Mainer, Rep.Chellie Pingree-D was one of the 39 who co-sponsored that bill!) and GMO's. We can't have stockholders actually requiring corporate execs to give them real numbers and making wise business decisions. Nope, can't have any of that going on!

You may be wondering how this fits in with "Green Pioneers" but if we don't maintain our freedoms in this country, there won't be much "pioneering" to do. We'll be given our marching orders and our rations for the day or week. It'll be Plato's Utopia pure and simple...in its most unadulterated form.

Add Comment
 
Safe or Sorry 03/17/2009
 



As coincidence would have it, WND's news breaking headline this morning was this:







Lose your property for growing food?
Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million

...and jail sentences up to 10 years...for each separate infraction. Interesting, huh? And guess who the culprits are in submitting this legislation in the first place...

"House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world's leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.

DeLauro's act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations."

DId you get that? DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for none other than that lovely, altruistic, looking-out-for-everyone's-best-interest...Monsanto!

OK and let's see which other highly-begrieved-over-our-food-safety Congress person introduced a similar bill...

"Another "food safety" bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee."

So our very concerned Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH is backed by whom..??? Let's see.. Monstanto, ADM, and Tyson. Minor detail. Hmmm. Does anyone smell a rat here..or several rats? Or is it just me?

Well, it doesn't end there. Please read the rest of the article. And please also understand that this is NOT about "food safety" here...or food "modernization"...give me a break. This is about controlling the food supply on a global scale that already allows these global corporate giants to poison us, hide it, and treat animals abominably. It's a cowardly coup is what it is. And we need to wake up and smell the coffee...or the rats.

And for those of you who think this is only about small farmers and so what? Our small farmers are our meal ticket to safe food. They're our only ticket to safe food...that is if you don't want to grow and harvest everything yourself. Backyard gardening and self-sufficiency is where our true security lies in this country. This is a Biblical precedent and it is fundamental to our Constitution and our liberty. Don't get wrapped up in the political spin and jargon. It's meant to scare, placate, and confuse...and they're very good at it.

Moving on..

I found another excellent article by Linn Cohen-Cole  relating again to this HR 875 and our "food safety" issue... or crisis...or whatever it's being termed at the moment. She states:

The "food safety" bills in Congress were written by Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, etc.  All are associated with the opposite of food safety.  What is this all about then?

In the simplest terms, organic food and a rebirth of farming were winning. Not in absolute numbers but in a deep and growing shift by the public toward understanding the connection between their food and their health, between good food and true social pleasures, between their own involvement in food and the improvement in their lives in general, between local food and a burgeoning local economy.

Slow Food was right - limit your food to what comes from your region and from real farmers, and slow down to cook it and linger over it with friends and family, and the world begins to change for the better.  

And as we face an unprecedented economic crisis, and it is hard to be sure what has value, one thing that always does is food.  Which is why the corporations are after absolute control over it.  But what obstacles to a complete lock on food do they face?  All the people in this country who are "banking" on organic farming and urban gardens and most of all, everyone's deepening pleasure in and increasing involvement with everything about food.

Farmers markets.  Local farmers.  Real milk.  Fresh eggs.  Vegetable stands. 

Those are things we not only all want, but things we are actively getting involved in, and things we very much need.  And where they are truly good, they are growing.

The international financial corporations which have wreaked havoc around the world with astounding nonsensical "solutions" that are destructive of everyone but them, are brothers to the international agribusiness giants (Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, etc.) which are just as aggressively after their own form of "taking."  Just seeds, animals, water, land.  

And freedom.

Read the rest of Goodbye farmers markets, CSAs, and roadside stands
And more of Linn Cohen-Cole's articles

If you simply can't imagine these corporations being capable of such cut-throat insidious practices, then please just view the video below. It's less than 5 minutes and is 4-5 minutes well worth watching.

Also see Monsanto Monopoly
Action Against NAIS (National Animal Identification System)
Outlawing Organic Farming HR 875

1 Comment
 
 

I just read this on the computer yesterday:

WASHINGTON – The nation's food safety system is a "hazard to public health" and overdue for an overhaul, President Barack Obama said Saturday as he focused on that task by filling the top job at the Food and Drug Administration. Obama used his weekly radio and video address to announce the nomination of former New York City Health Commissioner Margaret Hamburg as agency commissioner and selection of Baltimore's health commissioner, Joshua Sharfstein as her deputy. Consumer groups applauded the picks.

Okay, so what does "food safety" really mean for us? What does "food safety" actually translate into for small and organic farmers? For homesteaders and gardeners who would like to sell their extra produce...and the local farmers markets? For U-Pick farms and orchards? 

What does "food safety" really provide for the people of our nation?  Once we wade through the stipulations and language of HR 875, who are the big winners and who are the big losers? Because there will be a few very big winners and there will be thousands - if not millions - of big losers....basically our entire country and others around the world who are already following suit. Such is the track record from this type of sweeping government legislation.




Find this following article on Campaign for Liberty

Posted by LydiaScott on 03/06/09 03:36 AM






HR 875  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1112RD9bb:e11439:  

This bill is sitting in committee and I am not sure when it is going to hit the floor.  One thing I do know is that very few of the Representatives have read it.  As usual they will vote on this based on what someone else is saying.  Urge your members to read the legislation and ask for opposition to this devastating legislation.  Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few.

I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge food producers.  This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and have their property siezed.   It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it.  It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods.  If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers they will be subject to a variety of harassment from this completely new agency that has never before existed.  That's right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for our own protection of course.  

 DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF.  The more people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share.  Post your observations and insights below.  Urge your members to read this legislation and to oppose the passage of this legislation.

Pay special attention to

Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety.
section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.
Red flags I found and I am sure there are more...........

Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
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.
There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)

Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply?  Didn't Stalin use the food to control the people?

S 425  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s425: 


A solemn walk through HR 875.
by Linn Cohen-Cole

www.opednews.com






People seem to expect the bill to be titled "The Criminalization of Organic Farming and the Take over of the US Food Supply," and when they don't see any words to that effect anywhere in the bill, they declare "this bill is fine" and those seeing dangers are "alarmists."  Do they think the industrial side is composed of fools? These are the same people who make cheery cereals with cartoon characters on the box when, inside, high fructose corn syrup is all over the cereal and it comes from Bt-corn associated with diabetes and HFCS is, too, and there is an epidemic of diabetes here even among children.  They know how to package. Why do people understand that industrial food inside a box can be a problem and yet are so innocent about looking at the bills, not realizing there is packaging there, too, or how much is at stake that the public and even legislators not see since this is about taking control.  The industrial side aren't idiots. 

Understanding parts of the bill at times depends on smelling smoke as you read it.  Here in the US, we still have only smoke ... an Ohio state ag department SWAT team raid on an organic coop, Pennsylvania ag department raids on horse and buggy Mennonites, California setting coliform levels so low fresh milk dairy farmers would need cows that produced pasteurized milk right out the udder, arrest and handcuffing of a single mother in front of her children for selling goat milk, the USDA paying its agents bonuses for foreclosing on farms, ...  But in the EU where 60% of the Polish farmers are now gone because of identical bills enacted into law there, and 60 UK farmers have committed suicide, there is fire.  And in Iraq, where they have been rendered helpless serfs by the theft of their country's seeds and criminalization of farmers' collection of their own seed, it is roaring.  And in India where 182,000 farmers have committed suicide since the WTO and IMF got hold of agriculture and our Big Ag firms went in there, and 8 million farmers have left the land, it is out of control.  

The WTO, run by the multinational meat packers and genetic engineering corporations, want HR 875, here.  The bills are "harmonized" rules for globalization of food and lower food safety standards to allow for it.  Those corporations are members of NIAA, a corporate consortium that brought NAIS, created by Anne Veneman, to the USDA to be made into law. 



GP: Great intro! They begin describing the myths, facts, and terminology. Now this is an area, for example, that I'd like to draw your attention to most particularly. This is found under Section 206(C):


(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;


GP: And here are their notes in regard to the above:


They never mention seeds but this is precisely how they will criminalize seed banking and all holding of seeds.  

[Notice they mention harvesting, sorting and  storage operations, then watch below.   

To follow how this will be done, you must understand that: 

1.  there is a small list inside the FDA called "sources of seed contamination" 
2.  in which they have now defined "seed" as food,  
3.  so seeds can be controlled under "food safety."   Those seeds (so far) include: 

seeds eaten raw such as flax, poppy sesame, etc.; 
sprouting seeds such as wheat, beans, alfalfa, most greens, etc.; 
seeds pressed into oils such as corn, sunflower, canola, etc.;
seeds used as animal feed such as soy ....  

That is most seeds.  Seeds are essential to life and thus to freedom.

The "sources of seed contamination" include six little items:

agricultural water
manure (but NOT chemical pesticides or fertilizers)
harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment 
seed storage facilities. What you must realize is that seed cleaning equipment is THE single most critical piece of equipment for sustainable agriculture.  It is how we save organic seed.  It is the machinery used after plants "go to seed" to separate out (sort) the seeds from the plant material so the farmer can collect (harvest) and then save (put in storage) seed for the next year at little cost.  With his own seed, the farmer stays free of patented, genetically engineered, corporately privatized seeds.

You must also understand that Monsanto is getting rid of the people who do the seed cleaning and many other means of our having access to seed .

This year, 2009, seed cleaning equipment is now illegal in some parts of the country which tips us off to both the intent to control seeds in this way and to how they could do things under this bill.

How can they make such vital equipment illegal?  Quietly, and by saying it contaminates food.  

"Contaminate" is their favorite word since the public fears the deadly contamination that industry itself - not farmers - has caused.  Scare the public and thus push for "food safety standards" to be set.  

And to eliminate seed cleaning equipment, they haven now set the standards so seed cleaning (the simple separation of seed from plant) will now require a million to a million and a half dollar building and/or equipment ... per line of seed.  

So, a farmer who has been seed cleaning flax for 40 years with a hand made seed cleaner can't sell flax on the market anymore, though there are NO instances of anyone ever having gotten sick from seed cleaning equipment.  A farmer who has been cleaning wheat, corn and soy each year with the same perfectly fine equipment would now need three to four and half million dollars for three pieces of equipment to continue.

(The FDA isn't so bar-setting when it comes to other things like melamine in baby formula, though it is proven to sicken and kill infants), initially denying the melamine was in our baby formula and then quickly inventing a "foods safety" standard to okay it.) 

Organic farmers are not aware of this happening, perhaps because the left is being treated with kid gloves until HR 875 and related bills were passed.  But meanwhile the FDA and USDA have been tromping on traditional (many of them farming organically, by the way) farmers for years.  The organic community is disconnected from them so hasn't been aware of what is happening to them, and they [farmers] have a history of no one listening to them, which is too bad because it is they who are the ones bringing the warning that these bills are deadly.  The organic community, measuring against its own seeming safety, hasn't heard or understood.

Notice, though, that because a single "foods safety" bar has been raised, in time no one will be able to get organic seeds in any number because it will be illegal for all farmers to sell them to anyone.

Now, look at the last item on the list - seed storage facilities.

They would be careful not to ban them all outright given the extreme reaction they would get.  But now the method is more clear.  "Food safety" is the weapon and public fear is the driver and they only need to set the bar at the level that is impossible to meet.  


Farmers, gardeners, seed saving exchanges, seed companies, scientific seed projects, and seed banks, all require "seed storage facilities."  All are working overtime to protect biodiversity that is rapidly disappearing because of ... genetic engineering.  

Set the standard for "food safety" and certification high enough that no one can afford it and punish anyone who tries to save seed in a multitude of ways that have worked fine for thousands of years, and presto, you have just criminalized seed banking.  

The penalties, I will assume, will be tremendous, the better to protect us from nothing dangerous whatsoever, but to make monopoly over seed more absolute.  One is left with control over farmers, and end to seed exchanges, to organic seed companies, to university programs developing nice normal hybrids.

When you know that Monsanto with the help of the US government plundered ancient and rare seed banks in Iraq that held seeds with a genetic heritage (a biohistory belonging to all of us) going back 1000s of years and then made it a crime for farmers there to collect or use their own normal and non-patented seeds off their own land, you see how extreme the intent to control is.  

Now, perhaps it is possible to see how the identical thing is being done here, only it comes in a heavily, heavily disguised way - through "food safety" that isn't at all - and in only one tiny little paragraph within a very large bill.  

The Iraqis are now abjectly dependent on Monsanto and the US for survival itself and will have to pay whatever prices are set for food.  They cannot just grow their own and be free.  So, no matter what form of government they may have, they are now slaves because the control over them is that extreme.  Kissinger was right - control food and you control people.

We are inches from this ourselves.  The left needs to wake up.

This trick of setting bars above any ability to be in the game, is similar to how blacks had been treated.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Farming--Why-Obama-s-gove-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090125-421.html

This trick of setting bars above any ability to be in the game while imposing fines that destroy people who fail to meet that standard, is sadistic.  Then, taking the land as confiscatory payment, is theft by government become totalitarian and colonizing [enslaving] its own people.

There are other items of the list which surely will be controlled as well.  In toto, that little list is the deconstruction of farming itself and given the inclusion of manure, especially of organic farming.]


It's worth going through the rest of this article and their accompanying notes to realize the full impact of what's being done here. I'm afraid this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Current submissions to Congress

Note: For more background, please view the astounding documentary The World According To Monsanto and Patent for Pigs which specifically exposes Monsanto's grab for complete control over all breeds of pigs...eventually livestock. The precedent was set with seeds. Find links  here. The trailer is below.

6 Comments
 
 

How many of you have heard of Monsanto? Ask a local farmer and I guarantee you he knows ALL about Monsanto. On some level, he stands in mild to all out quaking fear of Monsanto...or at least of Monsanto lawyers.

Monsanto has designated itself as the global provider of all food supplies for the entire world...from field to fork ...that's their ultimate goal. Somewhat ambitious, but hey...if you're a multinational global corporation, owning the world's food supply is your deal...it's your noble quest...a manageable goal...right? It's not about simple market share...forget that! Child's play! It's about global monopoly.

So what's the game plan here? The Monsanto modus operandi is to take existing seeds (and now they're moving into animals) which contain a particular DNA or genetic structure and then patenting that genetic structure. Once that seed is patented, Monsanto owns the rights to that seed. If a seed found on a farmer's property contains this patented seed property...which obviously most or all will indeed contain them...since they're a seed...then that farmer can be sued by Monsanto on the grounds that he is illegally using a patented seed owned exclusively by Monsanto. This sounds crazy but farmers are being sued by Monsanto deep-pocketed henchman lawyers not only in the U.S. but around the world...even as far away as Australia.


Their next ambitious plan of attack is to focus on the pig. They are now bringing to the patent offices of the U.S. the DNA or genetic structure of the pig to have it patented. So what are the implications of this? It means that anyone owning a pig on the farm that contains this patented genetic structure will have to pay Monsanto fees for having this pig on their farm. This not only applies to the specific pig but also includes the pig's offspring. Why stop with just one pig...or all existing pigs...when you can collect fees on all future pigs, too...??? Hmmm. And who determines the fees? Well, Monsanto, of course, who else? You think I'm crazy. It IS crazy!! It's insane. Unfortunately, this may very soon be a reality. It's already impacting the seed supplies and how farmers are allowed to do business in this country.

The above is Part 1 of a documentary done on Monsanto concerning who they are, their questionable history, the GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) and health of our food, etc.

And the one below is Part 1 of a documentary on the latest development on patenting the pig. Obviously, if this can be done on the pig, then what's going to stop them from applying this to all livestock animals? Nothing. If Monsanto's goal is to own the food supply of the world, which is their stated commitment, then the next logical step is to address and monopolize the livestock, too. I mean, it's all in a day's work...for Monsanto.

Add Comment