Here is this week’s recording in mp3 and m4a formats. This week’s segment discusses R-CALF USA’s plan to stop the USDA from unlawfully mandating the use of radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) without first seeking public comment through a public rulemaking process.

Thank you.

Bill

Bill Bullard

During the Obama administration USA sovereignty was freely distributed to every tin-horn upstart organization world wide – now American Agriculture, the people who feed the world, are paying a price in many directions.

Bill Bullard

This short radio broadcast by CEO of R-CALF, Bill Bullard  quickly gives the history, and predicts the future of how the Animal Disease Traceability (ADT), a costly enforcement on all USA cattle producers, is being plunged down the throats of ranchers. (click here to listen) NAIS/ADT has been soundly refused by producers for the last 10 years, yet the USDA, NCBA, Mexico, Canada and the American Farm Bureau all agree it is a reasonable price all USA cattle people should be happy to pay.

Play this radio condensed version and groan, if you raise livestock, or plan to purchase beef in the future — it is designed that,  you-will-pay!

R-CALF is the only all rancher membership organization in the USA, and the only group protesting ADT in the USA. Every USA cattle producer should be an R-CALF member. Click For Application.

News With Views – 6-12-2019

by: Ron Ewart

As advocates for the American rural landowner, it falls upon NARLO (National Association of Rural Landowners) from time to time to support landowners in their constant struggle against onerous land use and environmental regulations, many of which are patently unconstitutional.  Such was the case for a Colorado landowner that lives in a very remote part of Western Colorado.  It seems overly restrictive regulations prohibited the landowner from dividing his 65-acres into two (2) five-acre tracts and one 55-acre tract.  He wanted to give the two five-acre tracts one each to his two daughters.  As a land consultant, we came to his aid with a strong letter to the local authorities, which we have repeated below.  We have altered the names to some degree to protect the party’s identity.  This story is just one example of the piling on of insane regulations and the corruption that exists, even in small town America.  It also shows how very rural counties are taking on the regulations of high dense urban cities, when such regulations aren’t warranted.  This is mostly driven by UN Agenda 21 policies that are in direct conflict with constitutionally protected property rights.  City dwellers have no idea the heavy burden this places on the rural landowner.

Capital Building and man on horse

Dear Planning Commission Members:

Our non-profit organization represents rural landowners throughout America against the onslaught of ever-tightening land use and draconian environmental regulations. We find that big-city land use codes are being re-invented in rural areas, that are totally out of proportion to rural settings and largely based on UN Agenda 21 social and environmental policies that fly in the face of American constitutionally protected property rights. Your county would be considered as quite rural, if not almost remote from large cities.  With a population of around 5,000 citizens, that works out to about 10 people per square mile.  Many areas of America would be ecstatic to have such low densities.  And yet, your land use code represents what very large cities do to control and manipulate growth, for reasons that are largely un-American.  The desire to maintain a rural or agricultural character unfairly restricts rural property owners and subjects a rural minority to the tyranny of an urban majority.   It is anything but equal protection under the law.  By what rule of constitutional law is a majority allowed to dictate land use policy to a minority, without constitutional due process or just compensation?

We would like to address two issues with this communication.  First, it has been brought to our attention that a Mr. Craig Smith and his wife Renee of No Place, CO have made application to divide Lot 35 of Log Village Unit 3, into two smaller tracts and one larger tract.  And the reason for their application is so that they can deed the two smaller tracts to their two daughters; a very reasonable request.  Their property is part of a larger Planned Unit Development Subdivision, purportedly known as Log Village Unit 3.  Our review of the elements of this case is that their application for subdivision falls well within the zoning requirements for the area and is serviced by all the necessary roads and utilities.  The proposed lot sizes are no smaller than existing lot sizes in the unit. 

However, we find two glaring concerns.  The first is a land use code requirement that two thirds of the adjacent property owners and two thirds of the owners in Unit 3 must grant their approval before the Smith’s can receive county approval for their subdivision.  We find this requirement to not only be almost impossible to obtain, but patently punitive, if not unconstitutional.  As you well know, it is hard to get 50% approval of anything, much less two thirds.   Just ask the U. S. Congress.   It also leaves the door open for retribution by one or more property owners against an applicant.  It further subjects the applicant to blackmail for one or more approval votes.  If adjacent property owners have so much control over a single neighbor’s property, it would seem fair that the neighbors with the control pick up a portion, if not all, of the applicant’s property taxes and subdivision fees.

The other issue that we find particularly curious is the fact that one of the adjoining property owners to the Smith’s proposed subdivision is none other than your land use administrator himself, one Douglas Cann.  This begs the question of the appearance of fairness doctrine, if not a direct conflict of interest.  We also find it highly questionable that the staff, under which Mr. Cann oversees, is now proposing changes to the County Land Use Code, Section 6, by what the Commission agenda describes as “housekeeping changes” only.  We have read the annotated copy of Section 6 showing those changes and they are anything but “housekeeping”.  In fact, these changes beg the appearance of an outright, blatant attempt by planning staff and perhaps Mr. Cann, to stop the Smith’ from subdividing their property at all.

Mr. Smith’s attorney sent a detailed letter, with specifics, to the County attorney, one John Degan, requesting reasons why the Smith subdivision cannot proceed.   To our knowledge, the county attorney has not responded, in any manner, to that request.  Again, this begs the question, was her delay in answering the Smith’s attorney’s letter, based on proposed revisions to the County Land Use Code that would render the request moot?

From our vantage point, we see an orchestrated pattern to deny the Smith’s their full right to subdivide their property for the very reasonable purpose of deeding that property over to their two daughters.  To deny them this right has the distinct odor of political and unconstitutional under handedness.

We specifically request the following:

  1. We direct the land use planning staff to deliver a copy of this letter to each of the commission members, prior to the start of the evening workshop and further said letter is to be entered into the record as public testimony, when a hearing for public testimony has convened.
  2. That you grant the Smith’s final approval to a very minor subdivision of their land. Their subdivision has little impact, harms no one and delays in or denial of approval would appear to be political, if not punitive in nature.  Mr. Smith has bent over backwards to work with adjoining and unit property owners, to allay their concerns.
  3. That you revise the PUD code to remove the 2/3rds requirement for adjacent property owners and owners within a connected subdivision unit, to approve applications for a subdivision of property within that unit. Allowing notice to and public testimony by adjacent property owners is how most jurisdictions handle this situation.  Again, this appears to be a blatant attempt to make further subdivision of property so difficult, as to make such subdivisions virtually impossible.  Final approval should only come from the County Commissioners.  We also find the 25% open space requirement to be additionally punitive.  Who compensates the owner for this loss?  These requirements have the hidden UN agenda of stopping, or making all subdivisions in rural areas of America, economically unfeasible.   
  4. Finally, we ask that you search your souls and look long and hard at your land use code, along with the proposed revisions. Start relieving some of these regulations before you end up doing what so many other jurisdictions have done, pricing their citizens out of single-family housing and stripping rural landowners of their constitutional rights.  Regulation translates directly into increased cost of housing.  Credible studies have shown that regulation can add as much as $200,000 to the price of a home.  Eventually, only very rich people will own single-family detached housing and the less fortunate will be relegated to apartments and condos.  Government will be solely responsible for this gross injustice and denial of the American dream.

All across America we see this pattern of government regulating to death everything that humans do.  We find it incredulous that we would run into this same pattern in a remote section of beautiful Colorado.

Thomas Jefferson said:  “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  Beware that you do not create an environment by over regulating the people in your great county that will end up by people having a reckless disregard for the law, because laws are too restrictive, or worse, the people become lawless altogether.  It is happening in other parts of America for exactly the same reasons.

As an adjunct to this testimony, we have over 30 years of direct land use experience in multiple states as a developer, an investor and a real estate consultant.  In addition, we served for one year on the planning commission of a large city near Seattle, Washington.  We also served over seven years as a director and vice president of a major city Chamber of Commerce, also near Seattle.

We learned recently that we blind-sided the commission with our allegations against the land use administrator and their land use code.  As a result the rancher was able to obtain his permits.  He was very grateful.  This is just one of tens of thousands of stories of the rural landowner being besieged by draconian regulations, city, county, state and federal.

If you are a rural landowner that has been plagued by overly restrict land use and environmental regulations, perhaps we can help you.  Check out our website HERE.  We provide land use Consulting.  We also offer constitutional, powerful, legally intimidating No Trespassing signs and a one-of-a-kind, unique Rural Landowner Handbook.   Over 7,000 of our No Trespassing signs have been installed on rural lands all over America.  There’s a reason.  It is the powerful and effective message that appears on our signs.

If you know of a rural landowner relative, friend, or associate, pass this on to them.  They will be glad you did.

Check out NARLO’s video, “Rural America In The Crosshairs

© 2019 Ron Ewart – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ron Ewart: info@narlo.org

About the Author: Ron Ewart

Ron Ewart

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”. Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. Affiliated NARLO website is “Old Timers Resisting High Tech” (http://www.otrht.com). Ron can be reached for comment HERE ewart@comcast.net. Email:info@narlo.orgWebsite:http://www.narlo.org

Note: COOL means COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABEL. For over 10 years this law was enforced. Every beef or pork product in the USA had to have, by law, a label stating the origin country. In the last months of the reign of Obama COOL was repealed, opening up markets for African, Brazilian, Mexican and vast imports from distant countries. Some politicians understand. Consumers want to reinstate COOL.

  • In April 2017, President Trump issued his Buy American Hire American Executive Order to help stimulate America’s economy.
  • Citizens, however, cannot choose to buy USA beef because the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against our U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) law and gut-less Congress repealed COOL for beef, hammering USA ranchers a harsh financial blow.
  • Recognizing that lower-cost imports reduce the value of domestic meat animals, current U.S. labeling law requires COOL labels on chicken, lamb, goat meat, fish, shellfish, and venison. Beef and pork are now outliers and consumers are not allowed to distinguish beef produced exclusively in the USA versus beef produced in whole or in part in a foreign country, who do not do USDA inspections during the meat preparation process.
  • The U.S. is the world’s largest beef importer. Each year importers ship up to 2 million cattle and 3 billion pounds of beef into the USA from more than 15 countries. These imports are direct substitutes for USA cattle, and beef, and represent about 20% of U.S. beef consumption. As many as 60% of all fast-food hamburgers in the USA are soon to be imported beef. It is a sad shame most hospitals, public schools, rehab facilities and retirement homes buy the cheapest/lowest quality meat that can be acquired from import wholesalers.
  • Not only is beef being sold in the U.S. without an origin label; but also, the “Product of USA” label is being applied fraudulently to imported beef that undergoes only minor processing in the USA.
  • In 2016, the year after COOL for beef was repealed, USA cash receipts from the sale of cattle fell $17 billion when compared to 2014. Importers with less sanitary conditions do not have to comply with the safety/cleanliness standards required for meat processors in the USA.

Reinstating COOL for beef would:

  • Strengthen the domestic cattle industry by allowing consumers to support America’s live cattle supply chain. Consumers would know what country their food was coming from.
  • Prevent consumer deception caused by affixing the USA label on beef derived from foreign cattle.
  • Allow consumers to express their nationalism/patriotism.
  • Allow consumers to selectively avoid beef from countries that may have food safety or disease problems. Namibia, Africa is one of the highest Hoof & Mouth disease riddled countries in Africa, yet they are allowed to import raw beef to the USA without USDA inspection.
  • When COOL is restored for beef, Rural America’s economy will strengthen as citizens begin complying with President Trump’s directive to “Buy American” beef.

Government enforced animal ID (ADT) still holds a glorious carrot in front of every ID electronics manufacturer. Just think, if it were the law that 700,000,000 cattle in the USA had to have an electronic ear tag implanted that costs $2 each, do the math. What do the manufacturers stand to gain if this becomes the law of the land. Consider next year’s 400,000,000 calves that would demand an ID. There are so many semi loads of money that every bureaucrat in Washington could be generously rewarded with his on load.

Realizing there is less disease in the USA than ever before and that every livestock owner already had an ID system in place, we don’t need it.

Please write your hostile “don’t do it” recommendation to the ruling authorities at this link.

SACRAMENTO (AP) – California Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has signed legislation that regulates emissions from dairy cows for the first time as California broadens its efforts to fight climate change beyond carbon-based greenhouse gases.

Cow Fart Pack

Cow Fart Pack

Brown’s move Monday targets a category of gases known as short-lived climate pollutants, which have an outsize effect on global warming despite their relatively short life and minimal percentage in the atmosphere.

Environmentalists hope that tackling short-lived pollutants such as methane now would buy time to develop new and more affordable technology to reduce carbon emissions.

The nation’s leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they burp, pass gas and or defecate – “God bless you!”

“If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming,” said Ryan McCarthy, a science adviser for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up serious enforcements to implement the new law.

In the nation’s largest milk-producing state, the new law aims to reduce methane emissions from dairies and livestock operations to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, McCarthy said. State officials are developing the regulations, which take effect in 2024.

“We expect that this package – and everything we’re doing on climate, does show an effective model forward for others,” McCarthy said.

Dairy farmers say the new regulations will drive up costs when they’re already struggling with five years of drought, low milk prices and rising labor costs. They’re also concerned about a newly signed law that will boost overtime pay for farm workers.

“It just makes it more challenging. We’re continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are going broke daily. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don’t exist,” said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

Republicans say the regulations will hurt agricultural businesses . Leading democrats believe a minuscule improvement in air quality is of more value than the business of producing agriculture products.

Enforcements are always costly. In projecting where this political lunacy is going, led by Californians, it is an unending guess. Will it transfer to ranch free-range livestock, the rodeo industry, horses, government wild horses, or even in full enforcement — people. Those watching the legal actions by California fear where this will lead. Will there be a Methane tax added to agriculture for non compliance? What will the fines be per cow? Will it affect Mexican food restaurants? Californians and “Moonbeam” Brown will be the first to know. All should watch from a safe flatulent distance.

The number of Californian people and businesses fleeing over regulation and high costs reached a record high last year. I doubt the new cow fart law will do anything to reassure people who haven’t yet joined the great Californian exodus. The whole thing stinks, or perhaps doesn’t stink as much as the politicians think.
*Quotes & data from Fox 5 in New York, Reason.com, Eric Worrall, (Associated Press – Galt, CA) and the National Association of Farm Animal Welfare.

Morningland Dairy—The Final Solution

Morningland Dairy—The Final Solution

©Doreen Hannes 2013

The Door to Morningland Dairy Cheese House

The Door to Morningland Dairy Cheese House

On August 26th, 2010 the destruction of Morningland Dairy began. Having lost a two and half year battle with cancer of the State, the interment will take place on January 25th, 2013.

People involved in all aspects of food production, be it growing, processing or distributing, should read through all the documentation [found on this blog – Hen] and understand that Morningland’s saga is the model for all independent food production under the FDA’s new Food Safety Modernization Act. Critical to this destruction are “science-based standards” as opposed to scientifically accurate controls and concerns. The Global Food Safety Initiative combined with “Good Agricultural Practices” and the “Guide to Good Farming” will ensure that an inability to feed the population will occur.  Morningland Dairy is an early casualty of these “science based standards”.

Visions and Hopes-The Birth

Joseph and Denise Dixon took over Morningland Dairy after Denise completed a two year internship with the founders of Morningland, Jim and Margie Reiner. The Dixons finalized the purchase and began improvements on the Missouri Milk Board inspected and approved raw milk cheese plant in October of 2008. The entire family was tremendously pleased because this would allow Joseph to be home with the family instead of on the road working as an electrician in the eastern half of the United States.  The Dixons wanted to expand the varieties of cheese made by the company and ventured into a broader array of production.

Their desire was to help other families in the historically poverty stricken Missouri Ozarks to make an actual living on the farm and allow families to stay together. They consulted with the Missouri Milk Board and arranged for two families to begin providing goat milk to Morningland and launched a popular goat milk cheese line shortly after taking over the company.

Goat Cheese Ready for Labeling

Goat Cheese Ready for Labeling

Morningland had six employees and other farming families dependent upon the continuance of the cheese plant. On August 26th, 2010, it came to a screeching halt.

While Joseph and Denise were at a cheese making conference in Washington State, the plant manager received a call from the Missouri Milk Board stating that there was an issue of potential contamination found by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in Morningland cheese.

The cooler of $250,000 worth of cheese was immediately put under embargo, more accurately understood as house arrest, by the Missouri Milk Board. Don Falls, an inspector for the Milk Board, told the plant manager, “You should be back up and running by early next week.” Obviously, that wasn’t true. As a matter of fact, the very next morning, presumably after he spoke with the FDA, Falls’ entire attitude changed.

Over the weekend, the FDA leaked a nation wide recall on all of Morningland’s cheese produced in 2010. Not just the two batches that California indicated might be “suspect” for contamination, but their entire year’s production. Most of the cheese implicated as “suspect” by California had already been consumed. No complaints or ill effects were reported by any of the consumers of any of Morningland’s cheese. Nonetheless, the FDA required all of their products to be recalled.

 Cheese in Morningland's Cooler In Happier Days

Cheese in Morningland’s Cooler In Happier Days

Death by Bureaucracy

 Very few people realize the FDA has an armed and very military aspect. They showed up at Morningland in camouflage and made a lovely impression on those able to be at the unveiling of the future of food safety “FDA style”.

The FDA and Milk Board worked hand in hand to ensure that this little cheese plant in the midst of the Missouri Ozarks, that hadn’t made anyone sick in 30 years, would never make another batch of cheese for their loyal customers. Yet the FDA, who admit to killing 100,000 people a year, are allowed to gain ever more control over everything we take into our bodies. So the tally on deaths over the 30 year history of Morningland Dairy versus the FDA is:  Morningland “Zero”, FDA “3 Million”…or somewhere near that.

Despite significant effort, the FDA found no contamination in any cracks or drains in the cheese plant or even on the legs of the milk talk in the dairy barn. This evidence was not allowed to be introduced as part of Morningland’s defense because the Missouri Attorney General’s office contended that the FDA “was a separate issue.”

When pointedly asked what the specific process for getting the cheese plant back into production was, the Milk Board representative said it would involve a panel and consultation with the FDA to determine if that were a possibility. The members of the panel, other than the Milk Board and the FDA, and the specific requirements and processes were never delineated and no effort to achieve anything other than the destruction of the plant was ever evidenced by any official arm of the State of Missouri.

Neither the State of Missouri or the FDA ever conducted any tests on Morningland’s cheese. As a matter of fact, when Morningland tried to contract with a State approved lab to do proper tests on batches of their cheese, they were told that the lab simply did not want to get involved in the controversy. Morningland was denied the ability to legitimately test their product and defend their livelihood.

Adding insult to injury, Milk Board employee Don Falls testified in court and under oath that improperly collected cheese samples, taken with no supervision and no instruction by an employee of Morningland for the plant’s manager, were in fact the State’s own tests.  This remains a very sore point for Joseph Dixon. He says, “When one commits perjury and no one in authority will hold them accountable for it, that individual and the system they support are nothing more than liars and thieves. In this case, the theft is of our ability to provide for our family and is based on bearing false witness to harm people who have harmed no one.”

Real Life Costs

 While bureaucrats masquerading as “protectors of public health” continue to be paid every month for the tortures they put people through, those being raped and pillaged by the very system that is supposed to “protect” them have to somehow come to terms with the fact that their very own tax dollars are being used to continue the offense.

When it became clear to the Dixons that the Missouri Milk Board was unwilling to work with them toward any resolution that would allow the cheese plant to resume operation or allow for the least bit of recompense for the $250,000 of cheese in the cooler, not even deeming the cheese safe for ultra high pasteurization to be put into dog food, Joseph contacted his previous employer and went back to work as an electrician….away from his home and family.

The Dixons, parents to 12 children, steeled themselves to do what they admonished their children to do. To stand for what was right no matter what the odds against them were. After their appeal for trial by jury was denied, they knew that they would need to face a State Agency, represented by the State Attorney, in front of judges appointed by the State. While they hoped that truth would prevail and that reality would actually be addressed, they didn’t go into this battle wearing rose colored glasses.

Initially, after over five weeks of dumping milk, some of their adult children milked the cows and Morningland sold into the commercial pasteurized chain, trying to make the farm pay for itself. When milk prices plummeted and the cost of feed soared, the decision to close the milk barn down was made. But the Dixons still needed to make the payment on the property they couldn’t use to make a living with any longer. They also had to pay to keep the cheese cooler running as the cheese was still under house arrest and effectively a ward of the State.

With Joseph again away from home during the week, and all the expense of keeping things in tact on the farm, things were difficult. Then Denise’s father became bed-ridden and her mother broke her ankle, so Denise and the younger children went to Ohio to care for her parents.

While the State employees continued to collect their wages, Denise Dixon nursed her mother back to wellness and cared for her father until he passed away. During this time, she had to make a couple of trips back to Missouri to face charges of contempt and allegations of attempting to sell illegal product.

None of the human issues in the disruption of lives and the stress of such assaults by the State seem to be taken into account when figuring the costs of these kinds of actions.

Should one believe the deductions set forth by Missouri’s Courts in this case, and take as fact the aspersions and allegations cast against Morningland in the court transcripts, the conclusion could be drawn that the State was the “Knight in Shining Armor” protecting the unwitting public against immoral people trying to poison their customers with products they created to be harmful.

But the truth is, the truth of the matter doesn’t matter. At least not to agents of the State of Missouri, but the People of Missouri generally hold a different opinion.

“Admittedly,” says Denise, “some of the tactics employed and the characterization of us running a “filthy” facility with “diseased animals” stunned us, but our Father is still in charge, and our hope is not in justice being served in man’s system.”

The End is Near

After exhausting all appeals, the cheese, still being kept cool in the refrigerator at Morningland Dairy, is set to be fully destroyed by the agents of the State, the Missouri Milk Board, on January 25th, 2013.

Two and a half years later, one could reasonably argue that the untended cheese has already been destroyed, and to some extent, that would be accurate. Just imagine that you close your refrigerator door and don’t get permission to look into it for 2 ½ years. How would that look to you? While pickles or olives might still be alright, it is highly likely that your dairy products would be a little bit off after such neglect, right?

Denise Dixon said, “After 6 months, the Colby was already gone, and that was about one fourth of the total cheese inventory. After not tending to it, no turning, no repackaging, no monitoring, at least half the cheddar has been ruined. The destruction has already taken place. Our family business, our livelihood, and our ability to provide people with living, positive food has been destroyed.”

Morningland's Cooler Now

Morningland’s Cooler Now

The Missouri Milk Board has ordered two dumpsters to be delivered to Morningland Dairy. So the cheese, which is “not fit for dog food”, will be put into dumpsters and delivered to a landfill to be consumed by wildlife which evidently are immune to the pathogens feared to be present.

Morningland Dairy will never be in business again.

No offer has been made by the Milk Board to prescribe the conditions that would need to be met by the operators to allow them to resume business. The Judge presiding over the case originally did write a regulatory prescription from the bench that was completely implausible for anyone to meet. It included a requirement to insure that no milking animal had bacteria indicative of potential mastitis at all prior to milking the animal.

To put that one judicial regulation into perspective, allow me to draw a parallel for those unfamiliar with milking animals. You milk twice a day, every day. The milk is “commingled” into one tank. So, imagine this….before sending your child to school, you must take a nasal swab and have it cultured to ensure that your child is not harboring a potential bacterial infection before boarding the bus. You would have to pay for this lab technician to be present every morning and for the tests. When your child came home in the afternoon, the same process would be repeated. You would have the immense pleasure of paying for this and keeping the records to validate the bacterial level present at each measuring.

While the scenario imagined above may not be literally impossible, it is certainly improbable, and it would be impossible to have any profit above the cost of production in such a scenario. But that wasn’t all that this judge set forth as regulation for Morningland from behind the bench, with no comprehension of dairy production or cheese-making  The other prescriptions the judge made would have cost more than $100,000 in hard costs, with additional continuing costs for excessive testing during the cheese-making process. He also still required the destruction of all cheese in the cooler, not allowing any batches to be cleared through testing. Additionally, the Missouri Milk Board never indicated that they would accept Morningland returning to production even if they did comply with the Judge Dunlap’s outlandish prescriptions.

The Missouri Milk Board nor the FDA have offered any process by which Morningland might be allowed to resume business and the courts have seemingly upheld Judge Dunlap’s regulating from the bench.

The Battle Is Over

Joseph and Denise Dixon of Morningland Dairy have given everything to this fight. Battling the State wasn’t really about them at all, but about our nation, our freedom, and our ability to choose food for ourselves and for our families that is truly nourishing and real. They held nothing back, but finally, the repeated systemic attacks have run their full course, and the dreams, hopes and labors of love poured into Morningland have succumbed.

As Joseph Dixon has summarized, “The state of Missouri has 6 million people from whom they draw tribute (taxes), from which they could fight us. To fight them, we had 65 cows.  And the truth never seemed even to be a consideration, let alone a goal.”

The Dixons no longer have those cows. They no longer have the cheese. They no longer have the family business and have lost all Joseph’s retirement savings, which the cheese represented. They are left with a skeleton. A milk barn with no cows, and a cheese plant with no milk, nor permission to ever make cheese again.

On January 25th, friends and family will witness the pulling of the plug on the cooler and the removal of the $250,000 worth of food created to nourish but prevented from fulfilling it’s purpose by bureaucracy and science based standards that have no basis in true science.

Rest In Peace, Morningland. Righteous judgment will come.

http://uncheeseparty.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/morningland-dairy-the-final-solution/

The Effect of Political Correctness on Politics

By Warren Beatty

The late Charlton Heston once said, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.”

The rationale of political correctness (PC) is to prevent supposed minorities from being offended (the manners) — to compel people (the tyranny) to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat, the ugly, or any other minority group identified by those who define PC.  Its primary method is the redefinition or replacement of words and behavior in order to avoid offense, to be sensitive to the feelings of minorities.

Before we can examine PC and its effect on politics, we must first understand PC’s origin and purpose.

The concept of PC was developed at the Institute for Social Research, in Frankfurt, Germany, in the early 1920s.  The institute considered why communism in Russia was not spreading westward.  The conclusion was that Western civilization, with its belief that the individual could develop valid ideas, was the problem.  At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas came from the state, that the individual is nothing.  The institute believed that the only way for communism to advance and spread was to help Western civilization destroy itself, or else force it to.

The institute said that by undercutting Western civilization’s foundations by weakening the rights of individuals through the change of speech and thought patterns, by spreading the idea that vocalizing beliefs was disrespectful to others and had to be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustice, Western civilization could be destroyed.  The institute wanted to call its method something that sounded positive — thus “political correctness.”

Another communist, Chairman Mao Zedong, in China in the 1930s, wrote an article on the “correct” handling of contradictions among the Chinese people, thus giving us the PC concept of “sensitivity training.”

Today we can add socialism to communism.  Does the addition of that economic philosophy alter the original intent of PC in any way?

Here are two specific examples of PC and of not being sensitive.

First, a famous PC incident occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1999.  David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., correctly used the word “niggardly” in reference to a particularly small budget item.  This reference upset one of his black colleagues, who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint.  The use of the word “niggardly” was not PC due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur “nigger,” despite the fact that the two words are etymologically unrelated.  Howard was not “sensitive” or PC. He actually resigned his job, but was reinstated after a national outcry over the conflation of unrelated terms.

The cited incident (and others like it) raise the question, “Are we now to abandon the use of certain useful words in the English language in the name of sensitivity and PC?”

We can now examine how PC specifically affects politics.

PC particularly serves mediocre politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint.  It is used to hold on to jobs, silencing critics and threatening anyone who questions their abilities.  If the offended party can strike back with accusation of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and hatred, then PC has done its job.  PC is a way of covering up incompetence and corruption.  It has worked well in the U.S. for decades: attack the accuser.  Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, wrote, “Let me tell you something about political correctness: when politicians start overdoing it with PC, rest assured they’re either hopeless at what they do or have screwed everything up big time.”

The current uproar about the Health and Human Services (HHS) edict on birth control is a good example of the PC problem.  The HHS edict said it wanted to expand “health care preventive services.”  But that PC phrase included some services that were contrary to the First-Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.  PC tends to eliminate any possibility of the discussion of the rightness and wrongness of a particular action through the restraint of free speech.

As a final example of PC run amok, consider this: Why have “swamps” been replaced by “wetlands”?  Why have “rainforests” replaced “jungles”?  Are they not the same things?  A government that wants to spend taxpayer money on conservation needs to avoid the negative connotations involving parasites and disease, so it redefines/replaces words in order to be more PC.  The preservation of wetlands is a much more noble cause than preserving a mosquito-infested swamp.

The continuing necessity for PC and sensitivity indicates that the ideal of societal equality (as defined by the PC-definers) has not yet been realized.

Where, ultimately, can PC take us?  One forecast was published in 1949 by George Orwell.  In his book 1984, Orwell, characterizing “newspeak,” wrote, “The destruction of words is a beautiful thing.”  Big Brother, the personification of the power of the state, through newspeak “simplified” words (gave them definitions he determined) to better control society.  With the simplification of words, the younger generations knew only Big Brother’s version of reality.  Is PC today’s newspeak?

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_effect_of_political_correctness_on_politics.html#ixzz2IoYPHH8c
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Downsize Government

Memo ~~ USDA knows 18% of the beef consumed in the USA was imported
in 2011 because the nation does not produce enough product to feed
it’s people, yet more costly rulemaking is assessed upon producers
by bureaucrats. This document is vague and impossible to determine
the teeth, however, be assured, the devil is in the details. Once
Hammerschmidt gets this approved and mandatory he will personally
add the teath. There will be no more listening sessions or public
comments — the federales will have their way, regardless of the
majoritie’s oppositon.

Yesterday, USDA submitted it Animal Disease Traceability Rule to the
White House Office of Management and Budget for final review. See
Below.
This is one obstinate agency.

 

AGENCY: USDA-APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24TITLE: Animal Disease Traceability
Neil HammerschmidtSTAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 04/25/2012 LEGAL DEADLINE: None
RIN Data
USDA/APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24 Publication ID: Fall 2011
Title: Animal Disease Traceability

Abstract: This rulemaking would establish a new part
in the Code of Federal Regulations containing minimum
national identification and documentation requirements
for livestock moving interstate. The proposed regulations
specify approved forms of official identification for each
species covered under this rulemaking but would allow such
livestock to be moved interstate with another form of
identification, as agreed upon by animal health officials
in the shipping and receiving States or tribes. The purpose
of the new regulations is to improve our ability to
trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

Agency: Department of Agriculture(USDA)
Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage
of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 90
Legal Authority: 7 USC 8305
Legal Deadline: None

Statement of Need: Preventing and controlling animal disease is the
cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers
and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods,
there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from
disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to
prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and
domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products.
Traceability helps give that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent
disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they
have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in
ongoing disease programs. The primary objective of these proposed
regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event
that disease is found in a manner that continues to ensure the smooth
flow of livestock in interstate commerce.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or
restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and
may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate
any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.

Alternatives: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal
health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency launched
an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through meetings
with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and public
comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast majority of
participants were highly critical of the program and of USDA's
implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has become a
barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in the
United States in partnership with America's producers. The option we are
proposing pertains strictly to interstate movement and gives States and
tribes the flexibility to identify and implement the traceability
approaches that work best for them.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: A workable and effective animal
traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to
more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can
reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers and
industries by enabling current and previous locations of potentially
exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits can include
increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and when
outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through
regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely
epidemiological investigation of animal health issues. Other societal
benefits include improved animal welfare during natural disasters. The
main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef and
cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS
would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations. Costs of an animal traceability
system would include those for tags and interstate certificates of
veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other movement documentation, for
animals moved interstate. Incremental costs incurred are expected to
vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether an enterprise
does or does not already use eartags to identify individual cattle. For
many operators, costs of official animal identification and ICVIs would
be similar, respectively, to costs associated with current animal
identification practices and the in-shipment documentation currently
required by individual States. To the extent that official animal
identification and ICVIs would simply replace current requirements, the
incremental costs of the rule for private enterprises would be minimal.

Risks: This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal health
risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning
identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of
a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to
trace animals that may be infected with disease.

Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 08/11/2011 76 FR 50082
NPRM Comment Period End 11/09/2011
Final Rule 08/00/2012

Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels

Affected: State, Tribal
Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No

Agency Contact: Neil Hammerschmidt
Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS

Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone:301 734-5571
______________________________________________________________________

 

Whose Country Is This?

by Lee Pitts

Lee Pitts is the Executive Editor of the Livestock Market Digest. His internationally syndicated columns and nine best selling books combine unflinching political commentary, humor, and serious livestock coverage with commentary blessed by a life time of experience. No one argues with Lee about the cattle business because he has been in the corrals and has scrapped a lot of "Stuff" off his boots many times. That is what it takes to gain authority, and he has.

There’s just something particularly galling about a secretive international tribunal telling a country, any country, what it can and cannot do. That’s especially true when a controversial trade organization tells us that we cannot inform the American consumer where her food came from.

According to every survey we’ve seen the vast majority of American consumers want labels on their food informing them of its origin. Some survey indicated that as many as 90 percent of American consumers want such country of origin (COOL) labels. Additionally, every survey we’ve ever seen indicates that the vast majority American ranchers also want the beef they raise to be labeled as being produced in the good old U.S. of A. So when American grocers finally began putting COOL labels on cuts of beef, lamb, chicken, pork, and hamburger it seems everyone got what they wanted. Everyone that is except the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the beef packer’s lobby, the National Pork Producers and an organization that most Americans know little about, the World Trade Organization.

Unfortunately for the ranchers and consumers it is this latter group, the WTO, who will decide whether or not American consumers and ranchers will get their wish to have the meat they produce and consume labeled as to country of origin.

How and why we in America ever gave an organization located in Geneva, Switzerland, the right to tell us what we can and cannot do is a dirty little secret being kept by supposedly patriotic American politicians, lobbyists and multinational American-based corporations who don’t want you to know any more about them than they do the food you eat.

I Pledge Allegiance To The WTO

Opponents of country-of-origin-labeling say it is nothing more than a protectionist trade measure that we are using to discourage imports. And these critics might have a point if all the food in the world was the same and was produced under the same rigid health and environmental standards. But clearly it is not. As proof we offer up milk from China that was contaminated with melamine, European and Canadian mad cows, four legged Mexican TB carriers and South American bovines with Foot and Mouth disease.

We’d like to point out amidst all the brouhaha that country of origin labeling does not stop one single animal from entering this country, nor does it prevent any country from selling us beef. Of these facts there can be no debate. What COOL does do is give the American consumer the ability to find out where the food she feeds her family came from. The decision on whether or not to buy foreign or domestic beef lies solely with her, not some bureaucrats at a meeting in Cancun. That’s why we were devastated after years of watching COOL work its way through the bureaucratic and political morass that after it was finally put in place the WTO said last November that it was illegal. Not according to American laws, but according to theirs.

I don’t remember the founding fathers ever mentioning the WTO, do you? I can’t find it anywhere in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights, nor do I recall ever getting a chance to vote on its leaders, or having a say in its proceedings. I can find no evidence that any of our founding fathers were members in good standing of the WTO.

Such is the sad state of American politics these days that we held out little hope that anyone in our government would challenge the WTO’s COOL ruling, so we were surprised and pleased when the office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it was appealing the WTO ruling against the U.S. mandatory COOL law.

One Family’s Food Fight

After COOL was put in place as a result of provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill, Canada then requested consultations with U.S. trade representatives in December of 2008 concerning their objections to it. Canada alleged at the time that the mandatory COOL was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the WTO Agreement.

Shortly thereafter, Mexico and Nicaragua announced they had problems with COOL, too, and requested to join the consultations. Then on November 19, 2009, a three-person WTO panel was formed and eventually came to the conclusion that yes, Canada and Mexico were right and that we had no right to implement COOL in the first place. The WTO panel determined that the COOL measure “is a technical regulation and that it is inconsistent with the United States’ WTO obligations.” In particular, the panel found that as a result of COOL we gave less favorable treatment to imported Canadian and Mexican cattle and hogs than to like domestic products.

By the words “less favorable treatment” we can only assume that the WTO meant that because American consumers would theoretically prefer domestic product over a foreign one, that COOL created a premium for U.S. beef and pork and a discount for Canadian and Mexican meat. Which, if you’ll recall, was the exact point made by COOL supporters to begin with. And the premiums recently being given to age and sourced domestic cattle seem to back that up, after all, those premiums are not all the result of our export market. Those cattle aren’t all being sold to Japan and Korea.

The WTO was created in the first place by one-worlders who think there should be no geopolitical boundaries and that we are all just one big happy family. To hear them tell it, all this fuss over COOL is just a food fight amongst family members.

A party can appeal a WTO panel’s ruling and due to the marriage of big business and government these days in Washington, we had little hope of that happening when it came to COOL. But on the last day an appeal could be filed came word of one. Now comes a two to three-month WTO process where yet another panel will meet behind closed doors to consider the appeal. (WTO appeals have to be based on points of law, such as legal interpretation — they cannot reopen factual findings made by the panel.)

As a result of the appeal we found out that the WTO never said in the first place that the U.S. does not have the right under WTO rules to adopt mandatory COOL. No, what the three-person panel didn’t like was the way COOL “provided less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock producers.” They also did not like that “the COOL statute is more trade restrictive than necessary.” In other words, they did not like the fact that lo and behold, American consumers did actually prefer American beef and pork over imported beef.

Whose Side Are They On?

As to be expected from an organization that seems to be more interested in looking out for the interests of big packers than they do American ranchers, the NCBA quickly expressed their disappointment that the U.S. would even dare to file an appeal. “We are very disappointed in this decision,” said NCBA vice president Bob McCann. “Instead of working diligently to bring the United States into WTO compliance, our government has opted to engage in an appeal process, which jeopardizes our strong trade relationship with Canada and Mexico, the two largest importers of U.S. beef, An appeal is the wrong answer and a waste of valuable resources, This appeal will do nothing but escalate tension with our valuable trade partners and will prolong an issue that could be resolved quickly. We should be working toward a solution instead of creating a bigger problem.

“NCBA will engage with Canada and Mexico in order to prevent any retaliatory action that could occur from this unfortunate decision made by the U.S. government.”

Concluded NCBA’s McCann, “Cattlemen deserve a government that fights for and protects our opportunities. We need a government that not only demands WTO compliance of our trade partners but one that ensures the United States is abiding by these same guidelines.”

That bears repeating; in the words of the NCBA, what we need is a government that “demands WTO compliance.” One would think from such statements that the NCBA was getting its funding from the governments and stock raiser’s groups in Canada and Mexico, rather than the $50 million it gets each year from Beef Checkoff, funds paid overwhelmingly by American ranchers. (That 50 million dollars represents 80 percent of NCBA’s total revenue.) It should also be noted that the packers in the U.S. want their cheap imports to still be marked with a USDA inspection label to fool customers into thinking it’s a domestic product. The packers sure are getting a big bang for the buck they DON’T HAVE TO PAY to the checkoff.

Word Games

As you’d expect, R-CALF, who worked extremely hard to get COOL implemented, had a different take on the WTO appeal than the NCBA. “We’re extremely thankful that our U.S. Trade Representative has chosen to defend our constitutionally-passed COOL law,” said R-CALF COOL Committee Chair, Mike Schultz. “But, we’re in a no-win situation regarding this frontal attack on our COOL law because our nation should not tolerate for an instant a foreign entity’s efforts to undermine our constitutionally-passed domestic laws in the first place.”

As for NCBA’s role in the process, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard had this to say: “Several powerful corporate industry groups are actually supporting the WTO’s efforts to undermine our U.S. COOL law, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Meat Institute (AMI). These groups don’t want U.S. consumers to know if they are buying beef produced exclusively in the United States or if their beef was produced in Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, or any one of the more than a dozen countries where U.S. corporations source their beef.”

Like us, R-CALF’s Bullard had a problem with the WTO panel word game in which they said, that yes, the United States has a right to implement a COOL program but that we implemented it in the wrong way. (They don’t say what is the right way.)

“This is nothing more than semantics,” said Bullard. “and the WTO is far too coy to have attacked our domestic law in any other way than it did. The fact is that the WTO accomplished its objective by ruling on the one hand that COOL was too rigid and treated foreign product less favorably than domestic product, but on the other hand, it ruled that COOL was too flexible and therefore nullified the COOL law’s objective.”

Our government is sure sending mixed messages to cattlemen these days. On one hand the USDA wants to be able to track our livestock from birth to the grocery store so that they supposedly can protect the consumer from foreign diseases, while on the other hand they don’t want supermarkets to tell their customers what country the meat they are selling came from. Is all this making sense to anyone?

“Nonsensical and Baseless”

In theory, members of the WTO gain access to each other’s markets on even terms. This means that no two nations can have sweetheart trade pacts without granting the same terms to every other nation, or at least every other nation in WTO. Granted, that’s a great concept and a worthy goal. But since the WTO was founded in 1995 it has proven that’s not at all what they are about. Some analysts have called the WTO, “The most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world.” What makes the WTO so powerful is that its rules can be enforced through trade sanctions. If, for example, the U.S. loses its appeal over COOL and then does not change or eliminate COOL, then we can be fined, or have trade sanctions imposed against us. In some cases WTO can even exact their pound of flesh by punishing industries not even remotely related to the one in question. This gives the WTO more power than any other international body, even eclipsing national governments like our own.

One look at their history shows the WTO has invariably chosen the agenda of multinational corporations above the interests of local communities, the environment, and working folks. Like the United Nations and the World Bank (who they work hand-in-glove with) the WTO has undermined democracy around the world by promoting the concept of a one-world government. And they do so in secret. While the WTO says that transparency is one of their goals, they often meet behind locked doors, especially after 50,000 people showed up at their meeting in Seattle in 1999 after watching the WTO prove to be just a cheerleader for multinational corporations. Those protesters successfully shut down that WTO meeting but rather than make reforms, the WTO instead just made their meetings and deliberations even more secretive.

It’s hard to find a fan of the WTO. The left sees the WTO as lobbyist for big business, while the right says they should get out of the way and let companies and countries do business on a deal-by-deal basis. Fortunately for all of us, the WTO hasn’t exactly been a raging success.

So stay tuned, a decision on the appeal to WTO’s ruling on COOL is expected within the next 60 days. In anticipation of that event R-CALF’s Mike Schultz says, “The WTO’s anti-COOL ruling is nonsensical and baseless and we are confident the United States will prevail in this unenviable appeal.”

Nonsensical and baseless, you say?

That’s the very definition of the World Trade Organization.