Tuesday, December 7, 2010

What is INSIDE S. 510, the Deceptively Named "Food Safety Bill"

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=7661

Guest Blog: Why S.510 Does NOT Protect Local, Natural Food… or Freedom!

NATURAL SOLUTIONS FOUNDATION
Your Global Voice of Health & Food Freedom™
www.HealthFreedomPortal.org


Health Freedom USA is pleased to re-post this article by Ms. Hannes which was originally circulated by our friends at NAIS Stinks.com … NAIS is the National Animal Identification System which wants to “chip” all farm animals, “voluntarily” — and, for many reasons we agree with them, NAIS stinks! Both Codex and S.510 are very NAIS friendly, and thus not friendly to farmers, consumer or environment – see: www.FriendlyFoodCertification.org.


Why S.510 Does NOT Protect Local, Natural Food… or Freedom!


S. 510 Hits A Snag
by: Doreen Hannes Dec. 4, 2010
Reprinted with permission from www.naisstinks.com



Senate Bill S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed the Senate on November 30th, 74-23. Not a single Democrat crossed party lines. This bill is the coup on food in the US. Even though the Tester Amendment was included to dupe those who think it will stop small farmers and processors from being put right out of business, it will only slow down the demise of some small farms.


Then it came to light that a Constitutional issue that had been staring all of us in the face was present. The Senate did not pick up HR2749, which passed the House in July of 2009; instead they took up their own monster in S 510. They also began revenue generation in the Senate (Section 107 of the bill), which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.


Faced with a patently un-Constitutional bill, that violates Constitutional process, we have to remain vigilant until BOTH houses have adjourned for the winter recess prior to the next session of Congress. Talk about roller coasters.


If the Constitution means anything at all, the House should blue slip S. 510, which would preclude them from taking the bill up and very likely run out the clock for passage in this session.


However, there are four choices available for the legislation to move forward before they adjourn on December 24th. The first is for the Senate to bring it back and get unanimous consent to remove the offending section. Since Senator Coburn of Oklahoma will not consent, that avenue is cut off.


Second is for the Senate to bust S. 510 down to the original a compromise amendment, remove the funding section and the Tester amendment and try to ram it through the entire senate process again before the 24th. This seems unlikely, but do not trust them as far as you can throw a semi trailer loaded with lead.


Third, the Senate could take HR2749, which has already passed the House, and rush it through the Senate, and it would go straight to the Presidents desk with no process with the House necessary. This also seems rather unlikely. The bills are very similar and would have the same detrimental effects for everyone, but the Senators are not familiar with the bill, so it could be really tough.


Fourth, the House Ways and Means committee could pass the bill through and forgive the Constitutional infraction and refuse to blue slip the bill, then vote on it before the 24th and we would have the bill albeit there would be legal issues brought forth that could possibly ensnare the regulations they want to write under this bill. This appears to be the most likely potential for S. 510.


Make no mistake about this, SB 510, or HR 2749 are worse than the Patriot Act, the Health Care bill, and the Federal Reserve Act combined. We can all live without little pieces of paper, and many of us can live without doctors, and we have been living with the increasing police state since 911, but none of us can live without food and water. If we lose food and water, we will not be able to fight anything else.


The Tester-Hagan Amendment Lipstick on a Pig


The largest deception played on the public in S. 510 is the inclusion of the Tester Amendment. This amendment was sold as the complete exemption for all small farms grossing less than $500,000 per year. But if one reads the actual amendment, it is evident that it will not do what it is purported to do for the vast majority of small producers.


The Tester Amendment has strident restrictions on those who may be exempted from HACCP (Hazard and Critical Control Point) implementations. HACCP is 50 pages of instructions that require a certifier to sign off on the plan, and a team to be trained in ensuring the plan is followed on the farm. The requirement of this plan put about 40% of small meat processors out of business several years ago. If you fall under the protection of the Tester amendment, you will not have to do it….but let us see how protective the Tester Amendment really is.

First, the Tester Amendment purports to exempt farms with less than $500,000 in sales from the requirements of S.510. 


However, to be exempt one must sell more than 50% of their products directly to consumers or restaurants within a 275-mile radius from production, and keep records substantiating those sales. The records are open for inspection and verification of the exemption. In other words, you have to prove you are playing by their rules through record keeping and approval of those records, or meet the more onerous requirements of S.510.


You must apply to be included in the protections of the Tester amendment. You must substantiate through your records for three years that you fit the category of selling more than 50% of average annual monetary value within this 275-mile radius. So, if you sell on the roadside or at a farmers market, you must have a map handy and ask for ID from everyone who purchases from you or lose your exemption. Nice, huh?

Proof of Residence for Food? Really?



I can see it now….A lovely early June day, with the birds singing and the smell of freshly mown hay hanging in the air like the best memory from childhood. A young mother pulls into the Farmers Market and readies herself for a wonderful shopping experience.


She approaches the first stand with her mouth nearly watering at the bright display of fresh produce. I would like 3 cucumbers, please, says the lady with her 3 kids and cloth grocery bag.


Great! Can I see your ID? replies the guy in bibs.


Oh, I am paying with cash she replies with a smile.


No matter, says the farmer, We have to make sure you are within a 275 mile radius of our farm in order to sell to you.

She looks perplexed and says, Well, we are not. We are on our way to visit my parents and I wanted to make a special dinner for all of us, using their locally produced foods so they could remember how good home grown veggies are….So I can not buy from you without an ID?


The farmer scratches his head and says, Now see, I have to be very careful. I belong to a CSA that sells to a Chipotle that is 276 miles from us, so all of my sales at market have to be local or I lose my exemption and will have to hire 5 people to take care of the paper work and then I just go out of business. So no, I can not sell to you. What is more, all the vendors here are part of the CSA, so no one here can sell to you. You have a nice day now!


No Surprises-It is Locally — Global


What we have in Tester is local Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. In sum, control over all human impact on the environment. Everything will need to be within the food shed, and if you are outside of the food shed, too bad for you. It is a great way to surveille and monitor food production and distribution. And you still fall under the broad based reason to believe of the Secretary with the Tester amendment. If the Secretary, meaning the head of the FDA or HHS thinks you may have a problem, or deems what you produce to be high risk, you will be shut down until they say you can begin again. All of your product is subject to mandatory recall; that is why you have to keep records of everyone you sell to. And you will have to register as a facility under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, referred to as Sec 415 throughout the bill. (Knock knock—this is premises identification as in NAIS)


So please, do not tell me how great the Tester Amendment is, and that the expansive powers being granted to the DoD, DHS, HHS, FDA and USDA in this bill will be helpful to small farmers and local food production and make my food safe. Wake up and smell the coffee!!! Oh, wait. The only state that could produce coffee within 275 miles of itself, is Hawaii. Never mind. Wake up, and smell the tyranny, please.


(The best thing to do right now is to call the members of the House Ways and Means Committee as well as your own Representative and tell them they MUST blue slip S. 510. While I know it gets frustrating to call the Congress critters, the more they know that we know, the better the chance at slowing down the destruction they have planned for us. The switchboard number for Congress is 202-224-3121.)


[Note from REL: you can also use our automated email system to message all your representatives in both houses of Congress; in fact, please to both! Click Here for Action Item: http://tinyurl.com/3xdz3lp.



The Tyranny of S510

Nov 22nd, 2010 | By Carmen | Category: Big Brother, Politics | Print This Article


If you thought of one thing that the government was doing or attempting to do, what would you consider the most serious threat to your well-being? You could point to health care and say that government usurpation of your right to choose insurance companies and doctors is the most egregious abuse of government authority, but at this time, I would have to say S510 is the main thing that is pushing our country down the slippery slope of tyranny with as great or more dire consequences than health care reform.

You can survive your doctors or lack of them. S510 hits us where we’re most vulnerable—the ability to feed and provide for ourselves.

As of Wednesday, the Senate voted cloture on S510 and they now have 60 days to vote on it. Titled the “Food Safety Modernization Act”, this bill is a blank check that allows some sort of nebulous “Administrator” in the FDA to determine food safety, food production, and within a year, put together some kind of list of regulations (whatever he wants them to be) and make the rest of us toe the line in compliance. Well everyone wants food safety, right?

What many people don’t realize is that the FDA has a list it calls “sources of seed contamination”. To better protect us from ourselves, the FDA has now defined “seed” as a “food”, so now our seeds can be controlled through “food safety”.

Legislators like to use words like “contaminate” to instill fear in the public. Using that technique is valuable. Scare the public and it’s easy to get “food safety standards” set. Add in thirty-nine progressives who hop on the wagon, and presto! We are then saved from ourselves!

They’re either lemmings who are just following the party line and don’t understand, or they do understand the consequences and eagerly embrace the arm of government that seeks even greater control through the use of code words like “food safety” when food safety is not even the issue to begin with.

The big agriculture giants want to make you dependent on them for any seed, even if it’s heirloom seed. They know that they need the regulatory heft of Big Brother in order to accomplish this. First they need to eliminate seed cleaning equipment. They get the FDA to set minimum “food safety” standards for seed cleaning so that any farmer would need at least a million dollars in structure and equipment to meet the new requirements.

And that’s per line of seed.

Let’s not worry about the fact that there are no instances of anyone ever having gotten sick from seed cleaning equipment. No, we must satisfy the government regulatory beast that knows no logic and insists on being voraciously gratified in its quest for “food” safety standards, no matter what the economic or civil liberty fallout happens to be.

We are after all, too stupid to tend to ourselves. (I actually think this argument is an excellent nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory… how in the world could we have evolved this far and this long without the beneficial arm of government? By their reasoning, we should never have been able to make it out of the primordial soup.)

Farmers, gardeners, seed exchanges, heirloom seed companies, and seed banks have all been working to protect heirloom seeds, those self-propagating seeds that are rapidly disappearing specifically because of genetic engineering. But now the effort to take over the whole shebang by defining seeds as food is criminal and excessive government overreach. All the affordable means for harvesting, sorting and storing suddenly become too dirty for these “food safety” regulations.

And then the government has you.

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 ways that have worked fine for thousands of years, and just like that, you have criminalized seed banking.

The penalties are tremendous, with a million dollar a day fine and/or ten years in prison. The goal is to make monopoly over seeds absolute. The USDA will be in control of small gardeners, there will be an end to seed exchanges, organic seed companies, and an end to the freedom to pursue happiness in America as we see fit, reducing us to a sole dependence on corporations for our very means of survival.

Between the bankers, the corporations, and the thieving politicians, I’m beginning to wonder if we have a chance in hell of retaining this great experiment in freedom and liberty.

Monday, November 29, 2010

SEN HATCH TURNS AGAINST S.510; SEE HOW SENATORS HAVE BEEN BRIBED & CALL TO STOP IT


Activists,

Why has the Senate spent so much time trying to pass the completely inappropriately named and EXTREMELY SINISTER 'Food Safety Bill' (S. 510)? With numerous organizations and millions of people opposed to S.510, why is it even seeing the light of day in this Lame Duck session, when, in an article by Alex Bolton of “The Hill” dated November 8th, he reported that:
    Don Stewart, [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell’s spokesman, said Republicans will only allow bills with broad consensus to pass ... Nothing that has anything terribly controversial,” he said....

So how does Senator McConnell and his staff determine what bills have a “broad consensus” and are not “terribly controversial”? Do you think it comes from listening to the American people, the people who elected them? Apparently not. In the following article, research is cited as to how much campaign donation money (bribe money?) had been received from business organizations in favor of S. 510 by each of the 75 Senators who voted to move ahead with S. 510 in a cloture vote on Wednesday, November 17.

The numbers are ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING, with many Senators receiving far in excess of their annual salaries, and “surprise, surprise”, the senator receiving the 2td largest sum of money BY FAR was none other than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, with a “cool” $439,583. Only Saxby Chambliss, recipient of an amazing $557,694 topped McConnell.

So it appears that THIS is how 75 Senators came to know that S. 510, the “Food Safety Modernization Act” is a) non controversial, b) good for the American people and c) has a “broad consensus” for passage (meaning enough of them were sufficiently bribed). I hope this makes it clear that the November 2nd election was only a very small down payment on what needs to be accomplished, and that we need to 'scream bloody murder” to defeat the cloture vote (and anything that may follow) on S.510 scheduled for today, November 29, in the United States Senate.

Sincerely,
Dean Taffel
To become more familiar with the essentials of the chains that were supposed to been placed on the powers and actions of our government, please Secure Tickets Today For Our 11th Annual Bill of Rights Day Dinner Dec. 15. In P.B. Gardens


SEN HATCH TURNS AGAINST S.510 VOTE SCHEDULE FOR MONDAY VOTE- SEE HOW SENATORS HAVE BEEN BRIBED & CALL TO KILL IT

Saturday, November 27, 2010 4:52 AM
From: "IAHF.COM"
WILL WE OVERCOME THE DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS TO KILL S.510 ON MONDAY???
MAKE YOUR CALLS IMMEDIATELY TO KILL THE "FOOD SAFETY" BILL ON THE SENATE FLOOR!!

VOTE IS MONDAY- WE CAN KILL THIS!!
IAHF LIST:

In my last alert, I gave you attorney Jonathan Emord's analysis of S.510, the Food Safety Bill which threatens to have a very dangerous long range impact on not only our access to organic food, but also to dietary supplements due to harmonization language with the EU thats in it.

See the list below of Senators who have been bribed to support this bad bill which threatens to destroy small farmers by imposing full HACCP regulations that they won't be able to afford.
WHAT TO DO IMMEDIATELY (VOTE IS ON MONDAY):

Please call both of your Senators today to oppose it via the Capital Switchboard at
202-224-3121. When you get connected ask for each of your Senators. Tell them to kill S.510 The Food Safety Bill Tell them not to hand broad new regulatory powers to the corrupt FDA that would be used against dietary supplement manufacturers and also small farmers! If they don't believe this legislation would impact dietary supplements, send them Emord's analysis.
If they are supporting the bill as shown in the list below, please urge them to re-think their support the way Senator Hatch did! He initially supported the bill, but turned against it when he saw how much it would cost our bankrupt government to implement (see his press release.)
This monstrous pro Monsanto legislation favors Big AG, and threatens to CRUSH small farmers. Any Senator who tries to claim otherwise is a bought off LIAR. It threatens our access to dietary supplements down the road via harmonization language with the EU, and does nothing to protect food safety.

If you appreciate IAHF's efforts, please forward this widely and urge more people to act, and please support IAHF with a donation via paypal or by sending a check or M.O. to IAHF 556 Boundary Bay Rd., Point Roberts WA 98281 USA.

HAVE SOME SENATORS BEEN PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 - THE 'FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT'?
11-18-2010 11:16 pm - John W. Wallace

The following is a list of U.S Senators and the Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that these Senators received from Special Interest Groups to either support or oppose S.510 - The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. Money received by elected officials from Special Interest groups to vote a certain way on a bill or bills is nothing less than Bribery. I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received thus far:
Name of Senator - Party & State - Bribe For S.510 and Bribe Against S.510

Daniel Akaka - D HI - Bribe For: $27,690 \ Bribe Against: $700

Lamar Alexander - R TN - Bribe For: $190,421 \ Bribe Against: $4,850

John Barrasso - R WY - Bribe For: $31,350 \ Bribe Against: $27,500

Max Baucus - D MT - Bribe For: $123,803 \ Bribe Against: $55,980

Evan Bayh - D IN - Bribe For: $45,200 \ Bribe Against: 8,250

Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 \ Bribe Against: $2,000

Michael Bennet - D CO - Bribe For: $38,509 \ Bribe Against: $22,050

Robert Bennett - R UT - Bribe For: $105,530 \ Bribe Against: $10,000

Jeff Bingaman - D NM - Bribe For: $31,498 \ Bribe Against: $8,450

Christopher Bond - R MO - Bribe For: $49,550 \ Bribe Against: $5,200

Barbara Boxer - D CA - Bribe For: $120,000 \ Bribe Against: $13,650

Sherrod Brown - D OH - Bribe For: $57,800 \ Bribe Against: $6,600

Samuel Brownback - R KS - Bribe For: $20,950 \ Bribe Against: $13,500

Jim Bunning - R KY - Brobe For: $20,700 \ Bribe Against: $2,000

Richard Burr - R NC - Bribe For: $328,086 \ Bribe Against: $32,292

Roland Burris - D IL - Bribe For: $0 \ Bribe Against: $0

Maria Cantwell - D WA - Bribe For: $93,541 \ Bribe Against: $2,750

Benjamin Cardin - D MD - Bribe For: $72,200 \ Bribe Against: $0

Thomas Carper - D DE - Bribe For: $83,150 \ Bribe Against: $0

Robert Casey - D PA - Bribe For: $80,576 \ Bribe Against: $4,600

Saxby Chambliss - R GA - Bribe For: $557,694 \ Bribe Against: $108,041

Thomas Coburn R OK - Bribe For: $64,400 \ Bribe Against: $14,200

Thad Cochran - R MS - Bribe For: $50,144 \ Bribe Against: $22,000

Susan Collins - R ME - Bribe For: $157,438 \ Bribe Against: $7,800

Kent Conrad - D ND - Bribe For: $41,650 \ Bribe Against: $29,612

Bob Corker - R TN - Bribe For: $298,639 \ Bribe Against: $8,850

John Cornyn - R TX - Bribe For: $286,648 \ Bribe Against: $254,730

Michael Crapo - R ID - Bribe For: $64,199 \ Bribe Against: $14,350

Jim DeMint - R SC - Bribe For: $149,935 \ Bribe Against: $5,000

Christopher Dodd - D CT - Bribe For: $36,400 \ Bribe Against: $4,500

Byron Dorgan - D ND - Bribe For: $28,200 \ Bribe Against: $6,000

Richard Durbin - D IL - Bribe For: $151,050 \ Bribe Against: $19,000

John Ensign - R NV - Bribe For: $76,297 \ Bribe Against: $10,500

Michael Enzi - R WY - Bribe For: $87,394 \ Bribe Against: $21,450

Russell Feingold - D WI - Bribe For: $53,854 \ Bribe Against: $2,200

Dianne Feinstein - D CA - Bribe For: $168,189 \ Bribe Against: 25,314

Kirsten Gillibrand - D NY - Bribe For: $98,210 \ Bribe Against: $10,650

Lindsey Graham - R SC - Bribe For: $101,272 \ Bribe Against: $5,700

Charles Grassley - R IA - Bribe For: $112,150 \ Bribe Against: $25,500

Judd Gregg - R NH - Bribe For: $26,000 \ Bribe Against: $0

Kay Hagan - D NC - Bribe For: $36,250 \ Bribe Against: $3,500

Thomas Harkin - D IA - Bribe For: $138,135 \ Bribe Against: $40,600

Orrin Hatch - R UT - Bribe For: $102,215 \ Bribe Against: $11,600
(See comment received from Senator Hatch's Office below)

Kay Hutchison - R TX - Bribe For: $127,811 \ Bribe Against: $103,386

James Inhofe - R OK - Bribe For: $66,744 \ Bribe Against: $36,430

Daniel Inouye - D HI - Bribe For: $26,350 \ Bribe Against: $11,200

John Isakson - R GA - Bribe For: $280,995 \ Bribe Against: $10,100

Mike Johanns - R NE - Bribe For: $159,259 \ Bribe Against: $59,785

Tim Johnson - D SD - Bribe For: $26,850 \ Bribe Against: $15,000

Edward Kaufman - D DE - Bribe For: $0 \ Bribe Against: $0

John Kerry - D MA - Bribe For: $14,406 \ Bribe Against: $250

Amy Klobuchar - D MN - Bribe For: $149,778 \ Bribe Against: $16,250

Herbert Kohl - D WI - Bribe For: $300 \ Bribe Against: $0

Jon Kyl - R AZ - Bribe For: $363,660 \ Bribe Against: $58,906

Mary Landrieu - D LA - Bribe For: $73,622 \ Bribe Against: $2,250

Frank Lautenberg - D NJ - Bribe For: $37,883 \ Bribe Against: $3,550

Patrick Leahy - D VT - Bribe For: $13,800 \ Bribe Against: $2,750

Carl Levin - D MI - Bribe For: $49,900 \ Bribe Against: $2,000

Joseph Lieberman - I CT - Bribe For: $121,075 \ Bribe Against: $0

Blanche Lincoln - D AR - Bribe For: $347,526 \ Bribe Against: $125,297

Richard Lugar - R IN - Bribe For: $153,579 \ Bribe Against: $21,000

John McCain - R AZ - Bribe For: $118,070 \ Bribe Against: $21,525

Claire McCaskill - D MO - Bribe For: $48,950 \ Bribe Against: $7,650

Mitch McConnell - R KY - Bribe For: $439,593 \ Bribe Against: $42,244

Robert Menéndez - D NJ - Bribe For: $183,850 \ Bribe Against: $250

Jeff Merkley - D OR - Bribe For: $27,350 \ Bribe Against; $3,300

Barbara Mikulski - D MD - Bribe For: $52,165 \ Bribe Against: $1,000

Lisa Murkowski - R AK - Bribe For: $164,713 \ Bribe Against: $5,800

Patty Murray - D WA - Bribe For: $136,500 \ Bribe Against: $3,150

Ben Nelson - D NE - Bribe For: $254,906 \ Bribe Against: $44,950

Bill Nelson - D FL - Bribe For: $205,471 \ Bribe Against: $35,748

Mark Pryor - D AR - Bribe For: $115,550 \ Bribe Against: $16,565

John Reed - D RI - Bribe For: $29,350 \ Bribe Against: $0

Harry Reid - D NV - Bribe For: $133,985 \ Bribe Against: $10,000

James Risch - R ID - Bribe For: $56,750 \ Bribe Against; $36,050

Pat Roberts - R KS - Bribe For: $167,294 \ Bribe Against: $65,186

John Rockefeller - D WV - Bribe For: $21,250 \ Bribe Against: $1,000

Bernard Sanders - I VT - Bribe For: $7,800 \ Bribe Against: $4,200

Charles Schumer - D NY - Bribe For: $175,185 \ Bribe Against: $14,200

Jefferson Sessions - R AL - Bribe For: $65,303 \ Bribe Against: $16,800

Jeanne Shaheen - D NH - Bribe For: $17,090 \ Bribe Against: $7,300

Richard Shelby - R AL - Bribe For: $73,616 \ Bribe Against: $10,000

Olympia Snowe - R ME - Bribe For: $78,136 \ Bribe Against: $2,000

Arlen Specter - D PA - Bribe For: $209,124 \ Bribe Against: $9,400

Debbie Ann Stabenow - D MI - Bribe For: $84,941 \ Bribe Against: $14,482

Jon Tester - D MT - Bribe For: $21,250 \ Bribe Against: $61,550

John Thune - R SD - Bribe For: $218,900 \ Bribe Against: $55,625

Mark Udall - D CO - Bribe For: $34,435 \ Bribe Against: $45,050

Tom Udall - D NM - Bribe For: $27,102 \ Bribe Against: $51,900

David Vitter - R LA - Bribe For: $188,225 \ Bribe Against: $8,500

George Voinovich - R OH - Bribe For: $103,850 \ Bribe Against: $185

Mark Warner - D VA - Bribe For: $116,450 \ Bribe Against: $8,600

Jim Webb - D VA - Bribe For: $25,300 \ Bribe Against: $7,700

Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI - Bribe For: $27,025 \ Bribe Against: $1,500

Roger Wicker - R MS - Bribe For: $147,650 \ Bribe Against: $16,250

Ron Wyden - D OR - Bribe For: $58,700 \ Bribe Against: $4,900

Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
American Veterinarian Medical Association $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0


Here's a list of Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that sopposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:


Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0
SOURCES:
www.MAPLight.org
www.FEC.gov
www.OpenSecrets.org
We should pay close attention to how the Senators vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate for a final Yes or No vote. Will those Senators who received a significant amount of money from Special Interest groups that support this anti-Liberty bill, vote Yes? We will find out shortly.
To write a comment you need to be registered
Register New11-20-2010 11:42 pm - Comment by Randall
I hope the bill fails. I see we have the best government money can buy. It came to no surprise that the two communists from arkansas voted for the bill.
11-21-2010 6:08 pm - Comment by johnw
Andrew Coonce
Mesa Arizona

Wow good work on tracking down all the bribes. You got one thing wrong tho. Not all 'Veterinarians' support it. I'm a veterinarian and I know I sure as hell do not. You meant to say that the American Veterinary Medical Association supports it. Which they do. I sent the AVMA an email the other day telling them how sorely disappointed I am that they should support this latest fetid peice of fascist legislation. Of course, no response. The American Veterinary Medical Association does not represent it's members at all. They are a snobbish,unionish, fascist orgaization that cajoles it's 'members' into continuing their memberships because that's the cheapest way of obtaining malpractice insurance. (Their malpractice insurance requires membership). The only other benefit to membership is their (essentially worthless) journal, which every veterinarian that I know just tosses in the trash upon recieving. So please don't say that veterinarians support S 510. This one emphatically does not. (Hey, I have a garden- and so do lots of my clients!!)

11-22-2010 9:28 pm - Comment by johnw
Liberty News online - Inquiry

Jessica Fawson
Washington DC
Jessica_fawson@hatch.senate.gov

You posted in this article http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_29693.php that Senator Hatch was voting for S 510- the food safety bill and had been "bought off".

First of all he voted against the bill twice last week and continues to remain against the bill, so he obviously hasn't been bought off for the bill. You can check the record but his stance is clear, you can also view his statement against the bill here, http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=65fb793a-1b78-be3e-e031-79b91e3aa9e4. I hope that you'd correct your posting about Senator Hatch's stance.

Anyways if you'd like to discuss this you are welcome to call me at 202-228-3095 or email me back. Thanks for your time.

11-23-2010 4:43 pm - Comment by johnw

That is very interesting about Hatch, as I complained about SB 510 a couple of weeks ago and he sent me a letter, stating he had supported it and voted for it in committee. This was already known by me. Sounds like he has had a change of heart because too many patriots have voiced opposition. There is always hope. DON\\\'T BE AFRAID TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS. YOU ARE HEARD.

Paul Chappell
Lyman, Ut

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA http://www.iahf.com jham@iahf.com 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World




Thursday, April 2, 2009

The truth is never "uncool". It may be unpopular or unwelcome, but without it there is no life and we will live in delusion.