Dairy Daze in Vermont

I had the dubious pleasure of sitting in the front row in Burlington, Vermont yesterday at a town hall type meeting with Sec'y Vilsack, Senators Leahy and Sanders, and Representative Welch. The topic at hand was the dairy crisis. After an hour and a half of speeching by grand poobahs, and pleas of help by the peons and subsidy takers, Senator Sanders said they were out of time for questions. 

There was a moment of quiet as gears shifted, so I, being me, leapt to my feet and said, "Mr. Vilsack, I want to thank you for stopping the National Animal Identification System." He was looking in my direction until I said that and then his eyes dropped to some important work he had left unfinished, I guess, because he started writing. He never looked at me again, nor lifted his eyes as he said, "Yes, we have decided to leave those folks who want to raise a few chickens out of the equation." "You mean that fastest growing segment of agriculture," I asked him, "those who make less than $10,000 a year?" He had spoken earlier about the NASS survey and how that segment is growing faster than any other segment in agriculture. Maybe he read or heard Doreen [See Easter Bunny Reports NAIS is Dead!] recently...heh...

Bernie Sanders was looking at me though, giving me 'grandpa winks', you know, high fives with the eyes. He was so approving of me.

I was wearing the last "Know Your Chicken" button, and so, me being me, began to unfasten it from my sweater with an American flag on the front, and said, "This is a historical button and I'd like to give it to you. I wore it at every NAIS meeting I went to." He still did not look at me as I stepped forward and placed it on the podium. "It says, Know Your Chicken." Some of my friends in the audience laughed, and then everyone laughed. I sat down. He still wouldn't look at me.

Bernie Sanders stopped giving me 'grandpa winks' then. His face turned bright red, even his ears.

People were shuffling around trying to either exit or get closer to the Men. I noticed that Mr. Vilsack had not picked up the button, so I went up to a large, linebacker sized black man who seemed to be in charge of Mr. Vilsack. I said to him, "If Mr. Vilsack isn't going to take that button, I want it back. It is historical." "I'll make sure he takes it," he said. He gave me one of his business cards asking me if I would email him my name, etc. I found his name to be quite interesting...Malcolm X.

Some of the other stuff I noticed: Leaky Leahy called Vilsack Secretary Obey. Bernie Sanders said that no other Sec'y of Ag had come to Vermont before. Leaky Leahy said that 3 others had. Vilsack said that we export more than we import. Leahy said, "So many of you that I talk with on the phone or my office does, you have all had that opportunity to be, to have that connection. That means a lot to just see you here." I video'd most of the event and I transcribed it right off the raw video.

As for the dairy industry in Vermont or anywhere, they're sunk. As one dairyman put it, "We've had a hundred of these meetings and nothing changes."


[Update 15 Feb. 2010]

Welcome Blogtalk Radio Horses Naturally Listeners

Thank you for visiting my blog. See that horse? She's Merry Grace, my QH Mustang friend. I will never put a microchip in her neck. Never.

Here are some links I might have mentioned.

(Links open in a new window)

KY Journal of Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resources Law

The Kentuck Horse Council

Recent articles via a Google Search for Horses NAIS

 To understand the history of NAIS, my novel First They Came for the Cows: An Activist's Story will be most helpful.

And, of course, become a follower of my blog to get the latest information about NAIS. Also, read though previous entries, starting at the beginning when I first learned of it.

Thanks for listening!

Merry Christmas. Keep Jesus close in 2010.

Just a ham sandwich away from the total collapse of agriculture

As one commenter put it:

I am so confused. How is tracking the legal animals going to stop his scenario of the ham sandwich? Are we going to catch and tag the feral pigs too? Will those pigs be mingling with the legal pigs at a rave or a mixer? How, exactly, will knowing who owns what animals help track where the feral pigs go? I don't own farm animals at this time but this simply doesn't make any sense. Tracing cows back to the source for mad cow disease, I can understand. Tracking an infected, wayward ham sandwich? Really?

9/14/2009 8:28:47 AM

September 14, 2009

Livestock tracking program upsets some in Southwest Florida

By AMY BENNETT WILLIAMS
awilliams@news-press.com

Michelle Musco doesn't mind telling the feds about her goats - all six of them: Nubians, pygmies and Boers that her two sons care for as members of the 4-H Goats-R-Us club.

Musco, who lives in Buckingham, is one of hundreds of Lee County residents who have voluntarily signed up for a government program to identify and track farm animals in the U.S.

"It was very easy - very user-friendly," Musco said about the sign-up process.

The federal government embarked on the massive effort to locate every livestock animal in the country - from cattle to backyard geese to 4-H hogs - in 2002.

The first part of the National Animal Identification System, now under way, is registering every place such animals live or stay temporarily, such as auction houses.

Although it's voluntary and free, the program may become mandatory in the future, said Stephen Monroe, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Florida's NAIS coordinator.

The second part would be identifying animals - whether with an ear tag, a microchip leg band or other label - and placing them into a federal database. That hasn't happened yet, and may not, depending on funding and the public's reaction, said Vermont farmer Walter Jeffries, who heads up NONAIS, a group that opposes the program."They've gone back and forth on if it will be mandatory, voluntary or abandoned," Jeffries wrote in an e-mail. "Congress cut their funding for NAIS to the bone (and) at this point things are quiet. We'll see what happens."

Although Jeffries and others in some parts of the country are up in arms about the program, in Lee County, no one has kicked up too much of a fuss.

"We've had some angry folks in some places," said Monroe, "people who've accused us of being Big Brother or working for the tax man, but it's not true."

At a listening session in

Austin, Texas, one of 14 held throughout the country, some attendees - mostly farmers - accused the government of lying, conspiring with corporations and wasting money (transcripts are at animalid.aphis.usda.gov).

So far, 220 livestock owners in Lee County have registered, Monroe said. Statewide, the total's about 7,800 - about 30 percent, he estimates.

One of those who hasn't heard of it or signed up is John Domanski of Buckingham, who raises a few dozen chickens, ducks and geese.

"I just don't do that much business," Domanski said, "and most of what I sell goes from here to the cook pot. It seems like it would be a big paperwork burden and the time you'd have to spend would make it prohibitive."

The program is designed to "protect the health of U.S. livestock and poultry and the economic well-being of those industries ... to quickly and effectively trace an animal disease to its source," according to its Web site.

Florida's borders are very porous, with animals and people coming in and out by the millions, Monroe said - some potentially infected with deadly illness.

"We're one sandwich away from a disaster like foot-and-mouth (a contagious disease of hoofed animals)," Monroe said. "Say someone comes from Europe with an infected ham sandwich, but when they take it out in Lee County, it smells funny so they toss it out the window. Feral pigs come along, eat it and then they spread the disease to horses, cows, goats and all of a sudden, we're behind the 8-ball." (A sandwich away???? OMG! - HEN)

"The only chance of containing the disease is knowing where the animals are. It's all about traceability," Monroe said.

Welcome to the Global Plantation

- HR 2749 Authorizes International Take Over of Food Production -

© Doreen Hannes 2009

The staff of Congress said HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, didn't authorize the National Animal Identification System. Many organic groups agreed with them. However, they weren't telling the truth. At least not the whole truth. It certainly doesn't mention "the" National Animal Identification System by name, but it definitely authorizes the program. It also doesn't state that it is legally authorizing Good Agricultural Practices, or GAP, partially comprised of Codex guidelines on traceability and food safety and the OIE's Guide to Good Farming Practices including auditing, certification and inspections as well as disincentives for not participating in the form of fines, penalties, and loss of access to market; but it most certainly does. Is it possible that Congress doesn't have the slightest idea what they were voting on? Possibly. It doesn't come as any surprise that Congress didn't read the bill as it was changed three times in a 24-hour period before it was passed out of the House with a 283-142 vote. Never mind that they don't read the bills any way.

Are these wild and unsubstantiated assertions about HR 2749? I wish they were. It's actually fairly easy to prove that this bill does all that I stated above and even more. All one needs to do is understand what is involved in Good Agricultural Practices and how the agencies of the World Trade Organization operate within member countries to get this. Don't worry, I will explain that to you in very brief detail, and there are only a few pieces from the legislation itself that are necessary to read to fully comprehend that this is indeed what we are dealing with in HR 2749. The international guidelines are much lengthier than the legislation itself.

HR 2749 is 160 pages in its final version. If you search through it, you will find the following references to international standards and guidelines.

"(B) INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS.—In issuing guidance or regulations… the Secretary shall review international hazard analysis and preventive control standards that are in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act and relevant to such guidelines or regulations to ensure that the programs…..are consistent……with such standards." (page 35)

"CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.—The Secretary shall apply this paragraph consistently with United States obligations under international agreements." (page81)

"The Secretary shall issue regulations to ensure that any qualified certifying entity and its auditors are free from conflicts of interest. In issuing these regulations, the Secretary may rely on or incorporate international certification standards." (page 82)

What this actually means is that there will be a layer of auditors, certifiers and inspectors over every aspect of food production in this country and that these inspectors and certifiers will be trained in ISO (International Standards Organization) management program certification. The ISO has been working with Codex Alimentarius on Food Safety Standards and in particular, a technical standard for Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) which is a consortium of the seven largest food retailers in the world, and that is ISO22000:2005. All traceability falls under the purview of Codex, the OIE (World Animal Health Organization and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) for global trade agreements.

The following excerpt from 2749 shows the fully interoperable global network already in existence regarding food and its production:

"Development of such guidelines shall take into account the utilization of existing unique identification schemes and compatibility with customs automated systems, such as integration with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS), and any successor systems." (page 142)

So it is clear that international standards and guidelines are implicit in this legislation. Note the usage of the command form SHALL. This isn't a 'might', 'may' or in anyway a voluntary issue on the part of the Secretary. Then there is the section on Traceability. This is a code word in the National Animal Identification System and when one reads Sec.107 of this bill, it definitively describes components of NAIS even down to 48 hour trace back. which cannot even be fantasized about with out individual animal identification.

"…..the Secretary shall issue regulations establishing a tracing system that enables the Secretary to identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days." (=note that it says "grows"=) (page 70)

and…

"……use a unique identifier for each facility owned or operated by such person for such purpose…" (page69)

So we have PIN and 48 hour traceback harmonizing with international standards and guidelines along with this:

"….‘‘(C) COORDINATION REGARDING FARM IMPACT.—In issuing regulations under this paragraph that will impact farms, the Secretary ‘‘(i) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture; and ‘‘(ii) take into account the nature of the impact of the regulations on farms." (page 71)

Now that I've killed you with legalese, it's time to let you find out just what these international standards and guidelines mean to those engaged in agriculture in this country.

Good Agricultural Practices are not a standard in and of themselves. They are more of a combination of standards and guidelines set forth by the FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, through both the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) and Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) to meet the certification and auditing side of the international trade aspects of the standards set forth. The OIE and Codex are charged with setting global standards and guidelines for the member countries of the WTO to meet to satisfy the SPS (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary), TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) and Equivalency agreements of the WTO for participation in international trade. Both the OIE and CODEX have guidelines for traceability that, with the passage of HR2749 into law, would be written into regulations governing all interstate commerce within the boundaries of the United States. The components of traceability are the pillars of NAIS that many of us have become so familiar with in the course of the battle over the past several years. Those being 1)Premise Identification, 2) Animal Identification and 3) Animal Tracking. You can't have traceability under international standards without having those three components.

One of the main issues in the implementation of these standards and guidelines within a member nation of the WTO is that they must have a legal framework through which to regulate and enforce these guidelines and standards. HR 2749 would meet the criteria for that legal framework via the excerpts from the bill above.

In the OIE's "Guide to Good Farming Practices" the management of a livestock facility are clearly spelled out. Some of these recommendations that would become defacto law in the US under agency rule-making on passage of HR2749 (GGFP delineates international guidelines for food safety at the farm level) are:

- For each animal…Require and keep all commercial and health documents enabling their exact itinerary to be traced from their farm or establishment to their final destination…

-Keep a record of all persons entering the farm…..

-Keep medical certificates of persons working with the animals……

-Keep documents proving the water you give to the animals meet specific criteria

-Keep samples of all feed given to the animals

-Keep all documents from official inspections

-Keep records of treatment and procedures on all animals (castration, disbudding, calving, medications, etc.)

-Prevent domestic animals (cats and dogs) from roaming in and around livestock buildings

-Place all these documents at the disposal of the competent authority (Veterinary Services) when it conducts farm visits.

Some of the other guidelines and standards that would come into play after the implementation of traceability for all agricultural products would be : (from FAO COAG/17 "Development of a Framework for Good Agricultural Practices") "the adoption and implementation of international standards and codes for which Codex food safety standards and guidelines have been designed, and the associated capacity building, training, development and field implementation in the context of the different production systems and agro-ecozones. These include: Enhancing Food Quality and Safety by Strengthening Handling, Processing and Marketing in the Food Chain (214A9); Capacity Building and Risk Analysis Methodologies for Compliance with Food Safety Standards and Pesticide Control (215P1); Food Quality Control and Consumer Protection (221P5); Food Safety Assessment and Rapid Alert System (221P6); and Food Quality and Safety Throughout the Food Chain (221P8)."*

To be certified as meeting the requirements of "GAP", which is synonymous with being in compliance with international standards and guidelines, we can check out GlobalGAP.org. This is "the" certifying methodology for international trade in ag products. Here are a few excerpts from their 122 page general regulations booklet has links to checklists for those who would be certifiers and auditors under the principles of GAP. This is an organization, not a governing body under WTO agreements, but working with nations and businesses to meet the criteria regarding these GAP practices for international trade. Here is a bare minimum of excerpts from their regulation document:

-(ii) Developing a Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) framework for benchmarking existing assurance schemes and standards including traceability. (iii) Providing guidance for continuous improvement and the development and understanding of best practice. (iv) Establish a single, recognised framework for independent verification.

-Production Location: A production unit or group of production units, covered by the same ownership, operational procedures, farm management, and GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) decision-making activities.

-Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracing product from the producer’s immediate customer back to the producer and certified farm.

-Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracking product from the producer to his immediate customer.

In simple English, which appears to be highly lacking in all these guidelines, it means NAIS for everything, and for anyone who wishes to be engaged in agriculture….Remember the "grows" phrase from the earlier excerpt from HR2749. Now let's look at some of the 'exception' clauses in HR2749. This bill is a terrifically crafty piece of legislation that is designed to cloud the reader's understanding of the impact of the law being proposed in it. All of the exception clauses give the exception under this Act so long as you are ready to be regulated under a different Act. We'll just look at a couple of these clauses to allow you to get the gist of the lack of exception available through the exceptions….

Farms- A farm is exempt from the requirements of this Act to the extent such farm raises animals from which food is derived that is regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act.

‘‘(I) such an operation that packs or holds food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership;

‘‘(II) such an operation that manufactures or processes food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership; (pages9 and10)

Thus, if you grow everything you feed and consume everything you grow, and use no minerals or salts that you don't mine yourself, you may be exempt. Or, in plain English, don't even try to make a living in agriculture if you won't comply with these rules.

One more exception to contend with here is:

‘(A) DIRECT SALES BY FARMS- Food is exempt from the requirements of this subsection if such food is--

‘(i) produced on a farm; and

‘(ii) sold by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or to a restaurant or grocery store. (page 71)

This sounds good. However, there are several problems with this that are not evident without some knowledge of how things are done in the traditional avenues open for market to growers. First of all, cattle, whom you may recall as the primary target of the NAIS Business Plan, are sold either at auction barns or via potload to feedlots. It is illegal to sell beef directly from the farm to consumers in every state that I know of. People often will sell a calf ready to butcher in halves or quarters to people and deliver the calf to the slaughter facility for the consumer, but this is far from the normal route of commerce in cattle or other species of meat animals. Even if you can securely wedge your operation into this particular exemption, they get you later via the record keeping section of this bill:

‘(E) RECORDKEEPING REGARDING PREVIOUS SOURCES AND SUBSEQUENT RECIPIENTS- For a food or person covered by a limitation or exemption under subparagraph (B), (C), or (D), the Secretary shall require each person who produces, receives, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, or holds such food to maintain records to identify the immediate previous sources of such food and its ingredients and the immediate subsequent recipients of such food.

‘(F) RECORDKEEPING BY RESTAURANTS AND GROCERY STORES- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), restaurants and grocery stores shall keep records documenting the farm that was the source of the food.

‘(G) RECORDKEEPING BY FARMS- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), farms shall keep records, in electronic or non-electronic format, for at least 6 months documenting the restaurant or grocery store to which the food was sold.’. (page 74 and 75)

So being exempt means you are required to keep records. Keeping required records means you may be required to release those records. So how exempt can a person get under this legislation?

Then of course, as with any law, there are the fines and penalties. These are from $20,000 to $1,000,000 per violation. (page 122)

There is also the change under the seizure section that takes away judicial overview…(double quotations indicate amending language)

…….procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury, ""and except that, with respect to proceedings relating to food, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions shall not apply in any such case, exigent circumstances shall be deemed to exist for all seizures brought under this section, and the summons and arrest warrant shall be issued by the clerk of the court without court review in any such case""……pg 116

So we can just throw out that pesky Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and while we're at it, let's get rid of probable cause as well via this wording from page 117:

by striking ‘‘credible evidence or information indicating’’ and inserting ‘‘reason to believe’’;

There are many other dangerous aspects to HR 2749, like seizures, quarantines, and licensing and whistle blower provisions, but this should leave no doubt that this bill will indeed affect farms and has the potential to affect even home food production if an agency decides to apply the international risk analysis schemes to that venue.

Now, the questions that everyone involved in agriculture, meaning everyone who eats, must ask themselves are these:

Can regulating, fining and destroying the freedom of people to grow food create food safety?

Have the impacts of Free Trade on this nation been beneficial for the citizens of this country?

Have food safety concerns increased or decreased since we have begun to import more food under these trade agreements?

And ultimately, does the US Constitution provide for the voidance of the Bill of Rights to participate in global trade?

My copy of the Constitution clearly does not allow for any law to void the Bill of Rights which is unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed. It's time to let our Federal representatives know in no uncertain terms, that everything to do with governance ultimately comes down to the consent of the governed, and we will not consent to being run by international agencies.

================

My deep thanks to Paul Griepentrog, who helped in going through the legislation and many of the ramifications and amendments to current law under this Act.

What is wrong with HR2749 after reading it

The following is an excellent analysis of HR2749.

Written in response to a blog elsewhere that states the latest version isn't so bad...

I believe I have the last copy of HR2749 in my lap; it was “ordered to be printed” yesterday. I have a number of concerns still.
1. It gives the Federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, still, which violates the Constitution. There is no exemption for farmers, homesteaders or small processors who sell only in their own states.
2. The exemption for those who sell over 50% direct to the public will of course require some of us to PROVE the mix of our business, which means government inspection of our paperwork, farms, etc anyway. I own a small local food store. I am the sole owner and the sole employee and currently have nothing of my own in the store other than tomatoes and cucumbers, but will have goat meat within the month and eggs and bread as soon as my egg processing room and kitchen are licensed. Now you’d THINK since I am sole owner, this would be direct to the public, but since I have a storefront instead of a farm stand, it is not. Complying with HR2749 would make my tiny 9 acre farm cost me more money and heartache than it is worth. Those folks who sell at a farmers market and at a retail store or establishment will have to watch their sales very, very carefully and keep their records for years, just in case. I know someone who underreports farm market sales because the market takes a percentage and he thinks that is so unfair even though he signed a contract. This person will pay eventually, but to the Feds rather than to the market he’s cheating, because he also sells to a restaurant. There goes his more than 50% direct!

Read the rest here at Localvore Oregon


I

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

The following comes from The Proud Political Junkies Gazette and used by permission from Marti Oakley.

I have a bit of a different opinion about the FCLDF because they fumbled the ball early on, made some very sophomoric mistakes, and among their cast of characters are known to be controlled opposition. Additionally, there are some questions about the ruling itself.
[I changed the colors for the text because the original blue could not be read on this green background. Hat Tip to Laura - Hen]


A decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early. As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed …yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works.

I guess this statement in her opinion would answer the question posed to Tom Vilsack and other officials from the USDA, demanding to know under what authority or law NAIS is being implemented and is scheduled to become mandatory. Turns out, according to Judge Collyer…there is none. It would also answer the question as to why Mr. Vilsack nor the USDA will respond to the question or even acknowledge it has ever been asked.

It is apparent from this ruling there is no legal, lawful, legislative regulation or statute which allows, establishes or mandates NAIS. The USDA, using its so-called “rule-making” authority, which is nothing less than illegal law enacted by a non-elected bureaucracy, has simply been the tool to by-pass constitutional rights and liberties in an effort to expand the power and control of not only the agency itself, but also the federal government which has long since exceeded its Constitutional authority and power on many levels.

Since the court has ruled in this way, does this not make the bribes paid to state officials to “voluntarily” implement NAIS , euphemistically called [cooperative agreements]..an act of collusion? Wouldn’t this also make refusal to comply with state enacted mandates, for which the Judge herself has admitted, there is no lawful basis, a legal protection for farmers and ranchers? And would this not also include the prohibition on the SWAT team-like assaults being perpetrated in states like Wisconsin which accepted one of the USDA’s multi-million dollar bribes to do a test run on NAIS/Premises ID?

The judge also seemed not to be concerned about the impending loss of private property rights which is an intended result of NAIS/Premises ID; apparently having no judicial problem with livestock owners being referred to as [stakeholders, legally implying they have an interest in but are not the owners of their own property] and land owners relegated to the category of [tenants or managers] again removing them from the rightful legal ownership of the land.

Judge Collyer’s expert legal opinion went on to say that NAIS is “an identification and tracking program developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and adopted by state agriculture departments voluntarily”. This is a patently false statement by the court. USDA DID NOT develop the NAIS or Premises ID program. USDA is simply trying to codify into law Codex Alimentarius and all of its international regulations and standards of which NAIS/Premises Id is a key feature.

Again, paying bribes to state officials to implement what the Judge herself identifies as a non-existence law or regulation should have warranted the halting of any programs regardless of what non-elected agency had launched them into the public domain on behalf of Bio-tech and Codex Alimentarius.

“Collyer continued with….”They, however, completely fail to address Michigan state law, which authorizes the director of MDA to adopt programs such as NAIS compliance for cattle, and plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is misplaced.” The Judge does not admit or allude to the fact that Michigan would not have enacted this law without federal interference or encouragement.

The Judge seemed not to consider that Michigan officials had illegally entered into an agreement with USDA, which was the catalyst for the Michigan law, and had accepted monetary assistance, cooperative funding or what is in my opinion, legalized bribery to do so.

The Judge seemed not to be aware of a precedence, (a judicial concept continually invoked by courts when their intended rulings are in conflict with actual law) or, as in this instance totally ignored by the court as it would have rendered the ruling void, which states:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

It seems apparent that precedence is only advantageous when it does not conflict with intended encroachment by the government or its agencies.

Although the above opinion is by far not the only opinion of the Courts regarding the illegality of states agreeing to the implementation of what are obviously assaults on constitutional rights and protections, it is the most powerful.

Kudos to Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund for having the courage to mount this lawsuit.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

July 24, 2009
Categories: National Animal Indentification System . Tags: Constitution, FCLDF, Judge Collyer, Michigan, NAIS, premises ID, USDA, Vilsack, Wisconsin . Author: martijo

I need names for my 'project'

Fellow activists... I have had a project going for a little while now. In June we issued a special "Call to Arms" asking for donations. We got some, could use some more though, if you are kind enough to donate.

In the second step of this project I need a list of names of people who are against NAIS. A thousand names or more. More would be better but a thousand would also work. In order for us to use your name we need your permission. This is not for a petition, but for media exposure. That is all I can say about it right now, I hope you will understand.

So, for the willing, here is what I propose. Leave a comment here on my blog with your Name. That's all, your full name but no address, no other identifier. Your real name. I will be deleting stupid alias names like Donald Duck and the like, but please, don't waste my time doing that. By leaving a comment with your name it signifies your agreement to the use of your name in the media by me one time and one time only.

We need over a thousand names and we could also use more donations. If you have questions that I can answer, leave a comment here or email me at henwhisperer at gmail dot com.

Let's roll.

Jolley: Five Minutes (not) with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack

What a chicken. Chuck Jolley over on the Cattlenetwork wanted to interview Vilsack in wake of the listening sessions that were held recently. It is pretty pathetic that he couldn't respond personally and has his goon, Dr. Clifford, APHIS's chief vet, sorta answer the written questions. Sorta answer because they know full well that if they answer the really hard questions honestly they are going to get the pitch-fork holding unwashed farmers in their face. How many times do we have to say it? No NAIS!

Anyway, read Chuck's article.

7/10/2009 10:07:00 AM

Jolley: Five Minutes (not) with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack

For those of you expecting to see the long-promised interview with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, let me set the stage. In early June, I traveled to Jefferson City to attend an NAIS listening session. I was joined by several hundred distinctly angry people who wanted to personally give the Secretary a piece of their mind. I�m using the singular version of the word because they were of a common opinion. Many voices, one mind.

One of the first things I heard was the voice of the Secretary explaining his rationale behind calling these meetings. It was delivered by videotape and a longer variation of his initial comment announcing the sessions: "Today, I am asking farmers and stakeholders to engage with USDA in a more productive dialogue about NAIS. Now is the time to have frank and open conversations."

At the table behind me was a big fella in well worn jeans and a very large cowboy hat. To make sure his political leanings were perfectly clear, his shirt was emblazoned with a large round �No NAIS� sticker. He stage-whispered to his friend, �The least the S.O.B. could do is show up and listen.�

Such is the way politics break on this issue, especially in Missouri. It�s a black-and-white, friend-or-enemy state. Vilsack and the USDA? They were the enemy.

I mulled over that farmer�s incendiary comment for a few minutes and decided it was a wise decision for Vilsack to stay away. These events were supposed to be �listening sessions� and an on-site appearance by the Ag Secretary would have only served as a lightning rod for people with a confirmed and unfriendly agenda.

After hearing what everyone had to say, I thought Vilsack ought to have an opportunity to be front-and-center with his constituency on the issue. Listening to his thoughts about these one-sided sessions might help cattlemen understand his position. I contacted Caleb Weaver, Vilsack�s press secretary, and asked if he might be willing to answer a few questions.

NO problem. He asked me to send the questions to him and he would get right back to me with the answers. �Good approach,� I thought. �NAIS is such a politically sensitive subject, I don�t want to mis-read or misunderstand an answer. Better that they be well-thought out and precisely worded.�

We missed the first deadline � the questions got lost along the way. I sent them again and thought the new date might be even better since the deadline would fall just after the final listening session in Omaha. With the responses from all 14 sessions in hand, Vilsack�s answers would be even timelier.

It might help level the journalistic playing field, too. After doing back-to-back �Five Minutes with� columns on the NAIS issue and with anti-NAIS activist, Rhonda Perry, a few words from Vilsack should give my coverage of the issue some needed balance.

I waited for his responses last Thursday � until 11:39 PM. Weaver then emailed a note saying he wasn�t going to be able to deliver in time for last Friday�s Five Minutes With column. �How about next Friday (today),� I asked? NO problem, again. Meanwhile, several people from the No NAIS camp were needling me with comments that the interview would never happen.

Then came the word by email at around noon yesterday. Vilsack would be unable to answer but Dr. John Clifford, the USDA�s chief vet, would respond and his answers were attached. Now I know Dr. Clifford to be a learned and honorable man, well respected by his peers, and normally I would be delighted to interview him.

But, on this issue, he�s not Tom Vilsack.

Still, the core of my questions were aimed at finding out what the USDA had learned during these listening sessions and how the Department might use that knowledge to refine their approach to NAIS. I think you�ll understand their position after reading this column.

The rest of the article, the questions and answers answered by Dr. Clifford and not by that cowering bureaucrat Tom Vilsack, here.

Live from Jefferson City, MO - Truth for Tuesday

This week Truth Farmer, Doreen Hannes, will be coming to you live from the Jefferson City NAIS "Listening Session" and Protest. Sharon Zecchinelli will be helping run the show, and we will be visiting with fellow activists and discussing the Listening Session and the USDA reaction. Join us at 1pm EST on Tuesday June 9th for another informative show on the NAIS and life in the sights of the opponents of freedom.

We will NOT comply!!!

Click on the links below to hear Truth farmer on Tuesday from 1pm EST to 3pm EST:


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/06/09/Truth-Farmer-with-Doreen

http://www.tsrn.us/blog/show-schedule/


Feel Free to call in after the first half hour, the number is (646) 727-2652.

A bit counterintuitive

Take a moment to watch this video from R-CALF explaining why NAIS is flawed. After that, make plans to attend one of the listening sessions that USDA has arranged.
NAIS Listening Session Schedule [link opens in new window, so you can come right back!]

NAIS Stinks has a report on the first listening session last week in Harrisburg. While you are there, print out some of the helpful flyers to take with you or to post on bulletin boards in your neighborhood feedstores. Be a 10 minute activist this week. Get many to turn out for the listening sessions. Now is the time. Later might be too late.

While you are at it, order one of my books, First They Came for the Cows, to take with you to the listening session you will go to. It will show your solidarity.

"Don't come crawling to us", John Clifford, APHIS

Now the USDA, standing behind the apron of Congress to make NAIS happen even though they hear the message that we, the people do not want it, has invoked Dept. of Homeland Security to shake their big stick to make it seem more serious.

And, they conveniently pulled in the Swine Flu/H1N1 scare:
“The emergence of new viruses further demonstrates our need to not only be prepared to react to disease outbreaks, but to also undertake the necessary mitigation and research efforts that allow us to stay one step ahead,” said Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi."

USDA/APHIS continues with it's intentional misinformation "Clifford says that while a strong infrastructure is in place for NAIS, with only 35% participation, the effectiveness of the program is hampered. There has been pressure to make the program mandatory and Clifford said that all available options need to be studied with stakeholders before any decision is made." The number is more along the lines of 9%.
Read this article to understand the truth behind the misinformation.

Tuesday, May 5 – 200 p.m.
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry —Joint Public Hearing with the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology.
RE: To review the National Animal Identification System.

Panel I

• Dr. John R. Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
• Dr. Thomas McGinn, Chief Veterinarian, Office of Health Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.
  

Panel II

• Dr. David C. Smith, Assistant Director, Division of Animal Industry, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Albany, New York
• Dr. Jerry R. Gillespie, Former Director of Western Institute for Food Safety and Security, University of California, Davis, Hopland, California
• Mr. Kevin M. Kirk, Special Assistant to the Division Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Animal Industry Division, Lansing, Michigan

In my next blog post I will talk to you about the 7 listening sessions the USDA is holding around the country beginning next week. There is information you need to know regarding the 'consensus building' sessions in the afternoon. Right now I have to go make a bigger pen for the chicks to move to.

Two Open Letters to Chairman David Scott, Subcommittee on Livestock, etc.

I've been offline for a few days due to a hard spanking by Wildblue for going over our bandwidth. I have to say Thanks to Kevin who works in the escalation office who restored our usage. In the meantime, two open letters about the fake hearing in Congress the other day have been published. I want to make sure that you read them.


First letter by Marti Oakley:

The Honorable David Scott

Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture

Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry

1301 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-6001

RE: Testimony for March 11, 2009 Hearing on Review of Animal Identification Systems

Dear Chairman Scott and Subcommittee Members:

I am Marti Oakley, a consumer, writing to ask you to reject the USDA’s attempts to make mandatory the National Animal Identification System and as a companion assault on private property ownership, the Premises ID.

Having witnessed first hand the common contempt displayed by congress, if not outright disregard, when the public attempts to assert their opinions on pending legislative activity, please know that I will post this letter to you in every possible venue. The American public needs to know what is about to happen to independent farmers and ranches if NAIS is made mandatory, or, if any of the fake [food safety] bills are forced into law. They also need to be made aware of the resulting threat to not only food production, but its subsequent reduction in quality that will result.

Experience has taught me that what may appear to be an innocuous change in wording in reality is a change in legal definition and standing within the law. This is how [treaties] are re-designated as [agreements] to side step Constitutional criteria and protections and allowing illegal implementation of agreements usurping US law.

Read the rest here. Link will open a new window.

Second letter by Darol Dickinson:

Wednesday I listened with attentiveness to the “Public Hearing” on NAIS. I respectfully was sickened by the flawed information presented by the USDA to members of the committee. I was equally nauseated by the choice of “briefers” USDA had chosen to inform members of the Senate and Congress about NAIS prior to the hearing. Please share these points with your associates who are considering making a decision on NAIS that will adversely affect livestock producers from the smallest up to the largest operations for the rest of our lives.

1) NAIS proposes 48 hour trace back; it would not change food safety. Every human sickness from meat products is caused by incorrect processing, which are stamped and approved by USDA inspectors. Nothing before slaughter is detrimental to human health. The proposed NAIS ends before slaughter.

2) USDA presented NAIS as an important issue that must be dealt with promptly. That is not true. There is no urgency, no need, no rush and no value.

3) At this time the USA has the most disease free livestock in the world and the safest food. The system used by the once dedicated USDA has and will safely serve the nation. It is not out dated as you were falsely told. US private enterprise herd health is the professional example to the world.

Read the rest here. Link will open a new window.

Please come back here and buy First They Came for the Cows: An Activist's Story. Now more than ever you need to understand the history of NAIS.

House Subcommittee on Livestock Public Hearing

Follows is from one of our intrepid anti-NAIS fighters, cattle rancher Darol Dickinson. I hope you remembered to listen to the subcommittee's hearing. The deck was stacked. The chairman was hostile. They continue to believe NAIS is about food safety.


House Committee on Agriculture~~Public Hearing.

Darol Dickinson~~reporting

Wednesday, March 11, 2009, Longworth House Office Bldg.
Re: To review animal identification systems

Washington DC---at 10:00 AM the first public hearing was held on USDA's proposed NAIS animal numbering and enforcement plan. Numerous organizations were frustrated that no public forum was provided in the last six years to approach elected officials concerning this polarizing strategy. Livestock producers all over the US were excited about this opportunity to present opposition to NAIS. Recent polls have revealed that over 90% of livestock owners, if given a choice, would not enroll property in NAIS.

For starters, USDA organized the format with eight approved speakers who were required to submit a written text prior to their presentation.

Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator, APHIS was given the floor with unlimited dialog time to explain the imperative nature of NAIS. Committee members not familiar with livestock were provided written questions to ask Clifford. He is an employee of USDA and his job approval has to do with selling NAIS. He alleged the cost of NAIS would be as little as a half cent per cow. He also alleged volunteer NAIS property enrollment was 35% of the US livestock producers and later a different sworn testimony stated sign up was as small at 9% in some states. (Nationally NAIS enrollment is under 10% when accurate numbers are calculated.)

Bill Nutt, of Georgia Cattleman's Assn testified that the current numbering systems used by livestock owners were totally adaquate for all animal ID. NAIS enforements were not necessary. (5 minutes allowed)

Dr. R.M. (Max) Thornsberry DVM, President of R-Calf, written testamony attached. He stated NAIS was not necessary, not wanted by the majority of livestock producers and the proposed plan would not make meat food safer. (allowed 5 minutes)

Three other individuals testified for NAIS who were licensed by USDA, under the authority or had been given grant money by USDA.

Dr. Rob Williams of Australia testified how the Australian animal ID system worked well. He did not state that in Australia livestock breeders dislike the cost of their NLIS system because they can not compete in the world market with countries who don't force a numbering compliance. NLIS is considered by producers in Australia to be detrimental to world competitive trade for Australia. Australia has a 100% numbering scheme and their beef is the second lowest priced on the world market.

Kerry St. Cyr of Canada Cattle Identification Agency is employed by the Canadian numbering scheme and his salary depends on it's continuation. Canada also can compete against US meat products better if US has the cost burden of NAIS.

Today NAIS was judged by our elected leaders. USDA selected their own jury, and determined how many minutes each testified. The testamonies, much like speed dating, gave little time for serious evaluation.

Please see the attached [it is not attached, click here to go to the House Ag Committee's statements webpage - Hen] by Dr. Thornsberry who represented the over 3,000,000 livestock producers who are apalled by the NAIS. This is the R-CALF USA's written and oral testimony's on NAIS which was not allowed enough time to complete. The oral is the shorter version.

Please contact your elected officials to oppose this flawed program.

Listen up! US House Ag Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry

The NAIS hearing of the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry on Wednesday March 11, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, will have video and audio streaming available at the following link:
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/audio.html

PLEASE VIDEO RECORD (download) THIS IF YOU CAN, FOR POSTING TO YOUTUBE AND THE NICFA WEBSITE.

For a list of the witnesses who will testify:
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/schedule.html [Dr. Max Thornsberry, R-CALF, is to testify against NAIS - Hen]

Knowing what is said tomorrow at the hearing will help us write meaningful responses to Congressmen.

Please send your download, or a link to YouTube, or wherever you upload it, to info@nicfa.org.

Yours for food freedom,

Deborah Stockton, Executive Director
National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA)
nicfa@earthlink.net

Our purpose is to promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade that fosters availability of locally grown or home-produced food products.
NICFA opposes any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System.

NAIS White Paper

The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA) has just released a Report (White Paper) on the National Animal Identification System to go to all members of Congress, the general public, and all interested parties.

Please read and download the Report at http://nicfa.com/documents.html

Please call your Congressman and Senators (find them at www.House.gov and www.senate.gov respectively). Ask to speak to their Aide for agricultural issues. Talk to the aide about NAIS and ask to fax or email him the Report.

We want every member of Congress to receive this Report from a constituent.

If you'd like to get a full understanding of how USDA got the foothold they have, read my book, First They Came for the Cows: An Activist's Story. Click through the link on the right side bar.

I'll be on a radio show with my good friend and fellow freedom fighter, Doreen Hannes, on Tuesday next. For the particulars click over to her blog, Truth-Farmer.blogspot.com.

This is where the rubber meets the road

If you are like me, a homesteader growing a few animals for personal use - eggs, meat birds, pigs, turkeys and a horse - you might not have given any thought to the Omnibus Spending Spree, er, Bill and if it might affect your right to own animals. Surprise! It will. Read on.



Links:

Http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_omni2009.htm See: "Division A"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111zkqFeo:: (HR 1105 - Text - make sure the " :: " is in the address bar)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?r111:@OR+(+@1(H.R.+1105)++@1(H.+R.+1105)++) (Congressional Record entries - be sure the "++)" is included in the address bar)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c1119xtt9W:: (H Res 184, related legislation - be sure " :: " is in there)

Excerpt:

The bill includes $129,180,000 for Animal Health Monitoring and surveillance, including $14,500,000, an increase of $4,713,000, for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Given this investment, coupled with the almost $128,000,000 that Congress has already provided for NAIS, APHIS is expected to make demonstrable progress with effectively implementing the animal identification system. Accordingly, APHIS is directed to meet the following species traceability objectives that are derived from the agency's final 2008 animal disease traceability business plan:

--Cattle: By March 1,2009, identify 30 percent of the nation's cattle population to premises of origin within 48 hours of a disease event.

--Goats: By October 1,2009, identify 90 percent of goat breeding herds to their birth premises within 48 hours of a disease event.

--Poultry: By July 1,2009, achieve 98 percent traceability in the commercial poultry industry through the identification of commercial production units in the required radius within 48 hours of a disease event.

--Sheep: By October 1, 2009, identify 90 percent of sheep breeding flock to their birth premises within 48 hours of a disease event.

--Swine: By February 1, 2009, achieve 80 percent traceability in the commercial swine industries through the identification of commercial production units in the required radius within 48 hours of a disease event.

In addition, APHIS is directed to meet the following program administration milestones that are similarly derived from the final 2008 animal disease traceability business plan:

--By February 1, 2009: Publish proposed rulemaking to consider establishing the seven-character PIN as the national location identifier standard and establish the "840" Animal Identification Number as the Single version for the numbering system.

--By February 1, 2009: Incorporate the NAIS-compliant premises identification number format into existing Federal disease program activities.

--By May 1, 2009: Publish proposed rulemaking to consider using a premises identification number, in the NAIS-compliant format, for import/export facilities, the destination of imported livestock and the Location of exported animals prior to the assembly.

There is concern that APHIS removed a key outcome milestone from its final animal disease traceability business plan that assessed the agency's progress on integrating tracking databases maintained by States and private organizations. APHIS is directed to submit a report to the Committees that explains why the agency dropped this important milestone from its final business plan. APHIS is further directed to
provide an update on its current progress with fully integrating the Animal Trace Processing System with non-Federal tracking databases.

APHIS is directed to submit a report to the Committees within one week after each of the milestone dates outlining the status of each species traceability objective and program administration milestone and the reason the deadline was not met.

--------------
Find your Senator here and call his/her office. Ask for the Ag Policy Advisor and have a converstation with that person. Make nice, but be firm.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Act now, today, right this minute.

The House managed to pass this “Omnibus 2009” in 24 hours and we have no

reason to believe that the Senate will not as well.

What are you going to do? We as living human beings do not go to the polls to elect officials to represent Multi-National Corporations or Lobbyists paid by groups attempting to get their piece of the pie.

THE LARGEST UNPAID LOBBY GROUP IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS SITTING IN THAT CHAIR IN FRONT OF THE KEYBOARD – YOU ARE IT.

Buy my book and send it to the Ag Policy Advisor that you are going to get to know today. What better way to educate someone about NAIS. Click through the link on the right side bar.