If you don't understand Agenda 21 and why it is so bad for freedom and life in general, this piece is the absolute best, concise, and informative overview of Agenda 21 that I have encountered. It is a speech given by Tom Deweese in Kallispell, Montana the end of March. Please take the time to read it, you will learn a lot in a short time and for those who know Agenda 21 already, this is a valuable resource to help you in your education of others.
My hat is off to Mr. Deweese. This is nothing shy of excellent! Obviously, because this program is intended to change every aspect of human impact on the globe, there are many more details that could be brought out, but like I said, this is like the Cliff Notes version of Agenda 21, and you definitely come away with the essential points.
The Wrenching Transformation of America
By Tom DeWeese
April 22, 2009
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come a long way to get here and I have such a short time to be with you. So, let’s just get everything out on the table right now, shall we?
I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.
America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”
We all know something is very wrong and we are trying to fix it.
Many in America attempt to fight against one issue or another as they try to understand what is happening to their country. But most fail to see the whole picture and are being crushed under a well organized “divide and conquer” tactic that keeps them reeling from crisis to crisis.
Tonight, I’m going to try to give you at least a peek at the all-encompassing, gut wrenching national transformation that we face -- and, hopefully, help to lift the veil of confusion.
To put things in perspective, here are some questions every American should ask their elected officials – especially those supporting “climate change” legislation.
If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that man is off the hook?
We’ve been terrorized into accepting that human society was on the brink of extinction because of man-made global warming. We’ve been warned that, unless we take drastic action to reverse it – then islands will disappear, whole cities will be destroyed and polar bears will drown.
So, if it’s not true, will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria? Will you help to restore our Republic with common sense and sound economics?
Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose.
If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.
I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.
Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, “It’s the Sun, stupid.”
Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”
Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists.
Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore’s Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom.
Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.
An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs.
The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun.
That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame. Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing.
No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special home building materials, expensive alternative energy, no bird-killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences – and no need for a Climate Czar. Carol Browner can go back into mothballs.
We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. We can reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed.
We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs. And it will help us to stop funding terrorists. What’s not to like about drilling American oil?
We didn’t need a stimulus package after all – the economy will rebound on its own. We are free. The environment is not in crisis. Rejoice! Rejoice!
That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say.
That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.
That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, with more taxes, and more rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist.
…And that silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gore’s lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lies and changing our way of life. “Going Green” is the mantra of the day. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few inconvenient scientific facts.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama, our newly crowned king said, “The science is settled.”
Why do they continue to promote a lie? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.
In fact, the most important debate in the history of the United States is about to begin – it’s the battle over a completely new economic system based on Climate Change called Cap and Trade.
It should be called Tax and Trade as it will force up the price of every item created or run by energy from gasoline to toothpaste to natural gas to hotel rooms, as we sit in our cold, dark homes.
Cap and Trade will throw out the old system of a free market based on goods and services and operate on the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead of money, wealth will be determined by how many government-issued emission permits you own to allow you to operate your business.
In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.
During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.
But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning -- all in the name of protecting the planet.
It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our Liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.
You know, we have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses “community development,” “historic preservation,” and “partnerships” between the city and global corporations.
Civic leaders organize community meetings run by “facilitators,” as they outline a “vision” for the town, enforced by “consensus.” No need for debate when you have consensus!
People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for “social justice.”
Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.
What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.
The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. One outlined in a UN soft-law document called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992. The working name is Sustainable Development.
Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.
I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution -- touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives.
Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis.
It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government.
It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.
But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.
So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.
To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.
Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.
If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.
Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Have you heard that one?
Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.
Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: "Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment" (e.g., capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “…Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green?
And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped -- even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.
So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place?
There are four very specific routes being used.
1. In the rural areas it’s called the Wildlands Project.
2. In the cities it’s called Smart Growth.
3. In business it’s called Public/Private Partnerships.
4. In government it’s called Stakeholder Councils and Non-elected Boards and Regional Government.
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast.
From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity. How about Yellowstone National Park? Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve. Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.
Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area – and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches. 300 feet ought to do it. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them -- he goes out of business.
Lock away natural resources by creating national parks. It shuts down the mines -- and they go out of business.
Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest. Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and -- they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.
It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management, wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements, open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless. Now tell me how they can deny that the process is herding people into human habitat areas?
Today, here in your area, one of the latest Wildlands scheme is called Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y -- a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
The second path is called Smart Growth. After they herd you into the city, they have more plans for you in regimented and dense urban communities. They put a line around the city and tell you no growth can take place outside that line. Urban sprawl, they say disdainfully.
They refuse to build more roads as a ploy to get you out of your car into public transportation, restricting mobility. Those able to build apartment houses may find it impossible to provide parking – we don’t want any stinking cars!
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits there is a shortage of houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is a shortage of land.
Third, inside the human habitat areas, government is controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils.
These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who, like thieves in the night, just show up to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimate government within the system will be simply to enforce the dictates of the councils.
The councils are unelected, but all powerful. They are controlled by a small minority in the community. They will make you ask permission for anything necessary to live in the community. They can dictate the kind of building materials you may use in your home – or whether you can build on your property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let you acquire water and electricity for your new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
They can even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built. But the elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs – for their own health, of course.
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
The fourth path is Public/Private Partnerships. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
For example, using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury-laden green light bulb on you, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry.
PPPs are building the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land - sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government.
And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation. It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism that will only lead to Tyranny. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.
Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. Local communities are now being targeted by international forces. Here’s how.
In June 2005, I reported on the UN’s efforts to recruit the nation’s mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The mayors were invited to attend the UN’s World Environment Day conference in San Francisco.
The mayors weren’t there to simply discuss policy, they actually committed to an agenda with specific goals. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors’ signature.
The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors’ assigned tasks.
The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UN’s goal very explicitly: "Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws.”
The second document signed by the mayors was called the “Urban Environment Accords.” The document includes exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take -- controlled by a time table for implementation.
For example, under the topic of energy, action item number 1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of “renewable” energy by 10% within seven years. Energy action item numbers 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption.
These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN’s Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.
Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.
The UN document begins by stating: “Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015.” There is no scientific basis for the 100 liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption.
You must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 GALLONS per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.
Reprinted with permissionl -- © 2009 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia, and can be reached at (540) 341-8911. His email address is ampolicycenter@hotmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , and APC's website is www.americanpolicy.org.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Rebut to the "Myths of HR875"
This is a rebuttal to the organic groups who issued a 'myths and facts regarding 875 that Delauro's office actually gave to them. These groups are being paid to be watchdogs and instead have become the (perhaps unwitting??) lapdogs of the administration and the bureaucrats they are supposed to be watching……..Page numbers for the print out of the legislation are inserted. You can get the pdf for HR875 at www.govtrack.us Please use your search feature on the pdf to seek the pertinent words and definitions out and be sure to understand them. This is a nightmare piece of legislation.......
Myths and Facts
H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 “makes it illegal to grow your own garden” and would result in the “criminalization of the backyard gardener.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. The focus of the bill is to ensure the safety of food in interstate commerce.
Answer to the 'purported' myth number 1:
First of all, the Federal government hasn't even got the right to exercise jurisdiction within the borders of a state, so they can't write any legislation without having the authority via the constitution to expand their powers. The interstate commerce clause has been turned on it's head for decades. Look at sec 406 here, they 'presume' that position in this legislation....
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
page 20
SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM.
(a) In General- The Administrator shall--
(1) develop, administer, and annually update a national food safety program (referred to in this section as the ‘program’) to protect public health; and
(2) ensure that persons who produce, process, or distribute food meet their responsibility to prevent or minimize food safety hazards related to their products.
(b) COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS.—The program shall be based on a comprehensive analysis of the hazards associated with different food and with the processing of different food, including the identification and evaluation of—
(1) the severity of the potential health risks;
(2) the sources of potentially hazardous contamination or practices extending from the farm or ranch to the consumer that may increase the risk of food-borne illness;
Note: there is No exclusion for gardeners, and
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a “goodbye to farmers markets” because it would regulate and penalize “each farmer who wishes to sell locally.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized by any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods.
∑
Answer to 'purported myth' number 2
page 45
(b) INSPECTIONOF RECORDS.—A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator—
(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or
(2) to track the food in commerce.
cont'd page 120……..
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
∑ Farmer’s markets under this bill would be deemed as commerce. How do you propose to track sales? Also note anyone in the definition of 'food production facility' shall be open to inspection whenever the agency deems it is 'reasonable'.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the “death of organic farming” or “mandate the use of chemicals or certain types of seeds on organic farms.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop or interfere with organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
∑
Answer to 'purported myth' number 3
page 120 again
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
Also, from the definitions section:
page 11 and 12……....please read carefully. Food Establishments, are not to be equivocated with 'food production facilities'. The exemption is for restaurants, fishing vessels and those mentioned in the -exclusion section as 'food establishments, NOT 'food production facilities'
13) FOODESTABLISHMENT.— (A) INGENERAL.—The term ‘‘food establishment’’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.
(B) EXCLUSIONS.—For the purposes of registration, the term ‘‘food establishment’’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 4 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).5
14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
page 44 and 45--the most damnable section……..
SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--
(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;
(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;
(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;
(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and
(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.
(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--
(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or
(2) to track the food in commerce.
(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--
(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;
(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;
(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and
(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 was written by Monsanto and other large agribusiness companies because Stan Greenberg, Rep. DeLauro’s husband, is a consultant for Monsanto.
FACT: Monsanto and other large agribusiness companies did not write or express support for H.R. 875. Mr. Greenberg had no involvement in the drafting of the bill. Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner does no lobbying on any issue and its work is wholly independent. Mr. Greenberg never worked for Monsanto, and has not conducted surveys for Monsanto in the past decade. The bill is supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods. Also, H.R. 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups:
-- Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
-- Center for Science in the Public Interest
-- Consumer Federation of America
-- Consumers Union
-- Food & Water Watch
-- The Pew Charitable Trusts
-- Safe Tables Our Priority
-- Trust for America’s Health
Answer to myth number 4……….
Begs the question……Once the authority exists who will determine the practices? In so far as no producer groups were consulted in this draft or have been given voice, are we to be dictated to by consumer groups? Did these consumer groups, who seem to have not read the bill, have the slightest idea who actually authored the legislation??? This legislation incorporates both GAP (Good Agricultural Practices of the IPPC-International Plant protection Convention and Guide to Good Farming Practices, of the OIE-so it does the work of the WTO, and agribusiness, but maybe these groups who are sponsoring it have no clue about much of anything. However, I do not see a direct and irrefutable link to Monsanto in this legislation myself. There are tenuous threads, but nothing concrete. There is plenty that is horrific enough regardless of a potential lack of interest on behalf of Monsanto.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would implement a national animal ID system (NAIS).
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement NAIS, which is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. H.R. 875 addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Answer to Myth number 5….read the Bill!!!!!!
pages 71 and 72---72 mentions NAIS by name and ratifies the AHPA as giving the USDA authority to implement the program. Call if you want help on the ratification ramifications….
SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.
(b) Applicability- Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities, food establishments, and foreign food establishments.
(c) Requirements-
(1) STANDARDS- The Administrator shall establish standards for the type of information, format, and timeframe for food production facilities and food establishments to submit records to aid the Administrator in effectively retrieving the history, use, and location of an item of food.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Administrator to prescribe a specific technology for the maintenance of records or labeling of food to carry out the requirements of this section.
(3) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS FOR INSPECTION- Any records that are required by the Administrator under this section shall be available for inspection by the Administrator upon oral or written request.
(4) DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY- The Administrator, during any inspection, may require a food establishment to demonstrate its ability to trace an item of food and submit the information in the format and timeframe required under paragraph (1).
(d) Relationship to Other Requirements-
(1) CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS- To the extent possible, the Administrator should establish the national traceability system under this section to be consistent with existing statutes and regulations that require recordkeeping or labeling for identifying the origin or history of food or food animals.
(2) EXISTING LAWS- For purposes of this subsection, the Administrator should review the following:
(A) Country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).
(B) The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a-t).
(C) Country of origin labeling requirements of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1340).
(D) The National Animal Identification System as authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
(3) CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS- Nothing contained in this section prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate.
FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee. As legislation moves forward, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider H.R. 759 as its base bill. The Senate HELP Committee will consider S. 510 as its base bill.
Answer----on April 2nd the House Ag Committee had a hearing on Food Safety, the bill is in Energy and Commerce and Ag. 759 is equally as repugnant to the Constitution as 875, and neither one of them, or the other 16 pieces of legislation regarding food safety should have ANY hearing or even be introduced in a Democratic Constitutional Republic under Article 1 sec 8 of the US Constitution….Also, Obama promised to do 'something' about food safety within the next 100 days in the end of March. So fast track or not, we will see where this lands.
Myths and Facts
H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 “makes it illegal to grow your own garden” and would result in the “criminalization of the backyard gardener.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. The focus of the bill is to ensure the safety of food in interstate commerce.
Answer to the 'purported' myth number 1:
First of all, the Federal government hasn't even got the right to exercise jurisdiction within the borders of a state, so they can't write any legislation without having the authority via the constitution to expand their powers. The interstate commerce clause has been turned on it's head for decades. Look at sec 406 here, they 'presume' that position in this legislation....
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
page 20
SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM.
(a) In General- The Administrator shall--
(1) develop, administer, and annually update a national food safety program (referred to in this section as the ‘program’) to protect public health; and
(2) ensure that persons who produce, process, or distribute food meet their responsibility to prevent or minimize food safety hazards related to their products.
(b) COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS.—The program shall be based on a comprehensive analysis of the hazards associated with different food and with the processing of different food, including the identification and evaluation of—
(1) the severity of the potential health risks;
(2) the sources of potentially hazardous contamination or practices extending from the farm or ranch to the consumer that may increase the risk of food-borne illness;
Note: there is No exclusion for gardeners, and
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a “goodbye to farmers markets” because it would regulate and penalize “each farmer who wishes to sell locally.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized by any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods.
∑
Answer to 'purported myth' number 2
page 45
(b) INSPECTIONOF RECORDS.—A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator—
(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or
(2) to track the food in commerce.
cont'd page 120……..
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
∑ Farmer’s markets under this bill would be deemed as commerce. How do you propose to track sales? Also note anyone in the definition of 'food production facility' shall be open to inspection whenever the agency deems it is 'reasonable'.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the “death of organic farming” or “mandate the use of chemicals or certain types of seeds on organic farms.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop or interfere with organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
∑
Answer to 'purported myth' number 3
page 120 again
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
Also, from the definitions section:
page 11 and 12……....please read carefully. Food Establishments, are not to be equivocated with 'food production facilities'. The exemption is for restaurants, fishing vessels and those mentioned in the -exclusion section as 'food establishments, NOT 'food production facilities'
13) FOODESTABLISHMENT.— (A) INGENERAL.—The term ‘‘food establishment’’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.
(B) EXCLUSIONS.—For the purposes of registration, the term ‘‘food establishment’’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 4 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).5
14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
page 44 and 45--the most damnable section……..
SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--
(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;
(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;
(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;
(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and
(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.
(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--
(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or
(2) to track the food in commerce.
(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--
(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;
(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;
(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and
(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 was written by Monsanto and other large agribusiness companies because Stan Greenberg, Rep. DeLauro’s husband, is a consultant for Monsanto.
FACT: Monsanto and other large agribusiness companies did not write or express support for H.R. 875. Mr. Greenberg had no involvement in the drafting of the bill. Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner does no lobbying on any issue and its work is wholly independent. Mr. Greenberg never worked for Monsanto, and has not conducted surveys for Monsanto in the past decade. The bill is supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods. Also, H.R. 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups:
-- Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
-- Center for Science in the Public Interest
-- Consumer Federation of America
-- Consumers Union
-- Food & Water Watch
-- The Pew Charitable Trusts
-- Safe Tables Our Priority
-- Trust for America’s Health
Answer to myth number 4……….
Begs the question……Once the authority exists who will determine the practices? In so far as no producer groups were consulted in this draft or have been given voice, are we to be dictated to by consumer groups? Did these consumer groups, who seem to have not read the bill, have the slightest idea who actually authored the legislation??? This legislation incorporates both GAP (Good Agricultural Practices of the IPPC-International Plant protection Convention and Guide to Good Farming Practices, of the OIE-so it does the work of the WTO, and agribusiness, but maybe these groups who are sponsoring it have no clue about much of anything. However, I do not see a direct and irrefutable link to Monsanto in this legislation myself. There are tenuous threads, but nothing concrete. There is plenty that is horrific enough regardless of a potential lack of interest on behalf of Monsanto.
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 would implement a national animal ID system (NAIS).
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement NAIS, which is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. H.R. 875 addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Answer to Myth number 5….read the Bill!!!!!!
pages 71 and 72---72 mentions NAIS by name and ratifies the AHPA as giving the USDA authority to implement the program. Call if you want help on the ratification ramifications….
SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.
(b) Applicability- Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities, food establishments, and foreign food establishments.
(c) Requirements-
(1) STANDARDS- The Administrator shall establish standards for the type of information, format, and timeframe for food production facilities and food establishments to submit records to aid the Administrator in effectively retrieving the history, use, and location of an item of food.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Administrator to prescribe a specific technology for the maintenance of records or labeling of food to carry out the requirements of this section.
(3) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS FOR INSPECTION- Any records that are required by the Administrator under this section shall be available for inspection by the Administrator upon oral or written request.
(4) DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY- The Administrator, during any inspection, may require a food establishment to demonstrate its ability to trace an item of food and submit the information in the format and timeframe required under paragraph (1).
(d) Relationship to Other Requirements-
(1) CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS- To the extent possible, the Administrator should establish the national traceability system under this section to be consistent with existing statutes and regulations that require recordkeeping or labeling for identifying the origin or history of food or food animals.
(2) EXISTING LAWS- For purposes of this subsection, the Administrator should review the following:
(A) Country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).
(B) The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a-t).
(C) Country of origin labeling requirements of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1340).
(D) The National Animal Identification System as authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
(3) CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS- Nothing contained in this section prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).
∑ MYTH: H.R. 875 will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate.
FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee. As legislation moves forward, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider H.R. 759 as its base bill. The Senate HELP Committee will consider S. 510 as its base bill.
Answer----on April 2nd the House Ag Committee had a hearing on Food Safety, the bill is in Energy and Commerce and Ag. 759 is equally as repugnant to the Constitution as 875, and neither one of them, or the other 16 pieces of legislation regarding food safety should have ANY hearing or even be introduced in a Democratic Constitutional Republic under Article 1 sec 8 of the US Constitution….Also, Obama promised to do 'something' about food safety within the next 100 days in the end of March. So fast track or not, we will see where this lands.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
AmeriKa....
Fall out from the MIAC report continues. I have it on good authority that there will soon be copies of the same report from many different states that will be available.
I supported Ron Paul until he didn't have the cajones to run anymore because he wanted to go back to his very effective (ahem) seat in the Congress. Then I supported Chuck Baldwin. Anyone with any sense of how things really are in this nation MUST realize that the only position from which we could be resptred to a Constitutional Democratic Republic is the Executive Position.
This link is to the original article in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/
Listen to the 20 minute audio this gentleman recorded on his cellphone while being detained and interrogated by TSA agents in St. Louis when departing after the conference.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/tsabierfeldt.mp3
TSA detains official from Ron Paul group
Audrey Hudson , Washington Times, Monday, April 6, 2009
The Transportation Security Administration is investigating the detention and harassment of a Ron Paul organization official by airport screeners, an incident that was caught on tape at a St. Louis airport.
Steve Bierfeldt, director of development for Campaign for Liberty , was selected for additional screening after officials spotted a metal box in his luggage that contained a large amount of cash and checks made out to the campaign.
Mr. Bierfeldt was attending his organization's regional conference in St. Louis and said he was keenly aware, as the situation unfolded March 29, of a controversial report issued to Missouri law enforcement officials intended to identify members of radical militia members.
"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center . "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."
Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers and other campaign literature, and was interrogated by TSA screeners and airport police at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport for nearly a half-hour before being allowed on his flight to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport .
The money he was carrying, more than $4,700, was in the form of cash and checks received from ticket sales, bumper stickers, books and other conference-related items.
Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the event on his iPhone, and provided a copy to The Washington Times for review.
On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis .
In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.
"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.
Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."
"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.
The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.
"You're going to have to prove why you have so much money to the DEA," a second unidentified officer said.
"We're going to help you understand [the law]," the TSA official said.
As he was being led away by the officers questioning him in the recording, another unidentified officer approached the group and asked Mr. Bierfeldt whether he worked for Mr. Paul and whether the money was campaign contributions.
Mr. Bierfeldt responded, "Yes," and was told by that officer that he was "free to go."
But one of the detaining officers said he was "not all that ready to let him walk" back onto the concourse, and held him for another five minutes.
"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'" Mr. Bierfeldt later said in an interview with The Times.
"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
"I don't believe I was legally required to tell them. Carrying cash is not a crime," Mr. Bierfeldt said. "It is a dangerous precedent if the government can order you to tell them where you get your money, and no law requires them to know where I work or where I spend my free time and where I go on vacation."
Asked whether his employment with Mr. Paul's committee prompted more scrutiny, Mr. Bierfeldt said: "I don't know, but it may not have helped that they were aware of where I worked.
"I was obviously with the campaign and I was aware of that report. I didn't want to tell them off the bat that I worked for the campaign and Ron Paul, because the report said we were potential members of the militia, and that's why I asked what my rights were," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
Mr. Paul, a U.S. House member and honorary chairman of the grass-roots lobbying organization, said he was "rather shocked" by the incident.
"This sort of encounter is a sign of bad things to come," said the Texas Republican and 2008 presidential-primary contender.
"People need to know their rights, and law enforcement officers, even if their intentions are noble, should never be allowed to bully and detain law-abiding citizens," Mr. Paul said. "Steve´s experience is a prime example of how our liberties are in real peril and that we need to wake up to what's going on in our country."
The TSA issued a statement Friday confirming that the metal box triggered the "need for additional screening," but said the behavior of the screening officer was inappropriate.
"Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area," the statement said.
"The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action," the statement said.
The Homeland Security agency further explained that carrying large amounts of cash through airport checkpoints "may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry," the TSA said.
Mr. Bierfeldt made his flight on time and said he had not decided whether to file a formal complaint against the officers or the agency.
"Everyone in these types of situations needs to stand up for their rights," said Mr. Bierfeldt, whose organization describes itself as supporting constitutional ideals and a free-market society.
The Campaign for Liberty already had objected to Missouri 's militia report. On March 24, Missouri Department of Public Safety Director John Britt sent a letter to all the named candidates acknowledging the state had made a mistake.
"I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations," Mr. Britt said. "Additionally, you may rest assured that the report is not posted on any website maintained by the State of Missouri ."
"The Missouri Department of Public Safety regrets any inconvenience or issues caused inadvertently by the unnecessary inclusion of certain components by MIAC in its militia report," Mr. Britt said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/
I supported Ron Paul until he didn't have the cajones to run anymore because he wanted to go back to his very effective (ahem) seat in the Congress. Then I supported Chuck Baldwin. Anyone with any sense of how things really are in this nation MUST realize that the only position from which we could be resptred to a Constitutional Democratic Republic is the Executive Position.
This link is to the original article in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/
Listen to the 20 minute audio this gentleman recorded on his cellphone while being detained and interrogated by TSA agents in St. Louis when departing after the conference.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/tsabierfeldt.mp3
TSA detains official from Ron Paul group
Audrey Hudson , Washington Times, Monday, April 6, 2009
The Transportation Security Administration is investigating the detention and harassment of a Ron Paul organization official by airport screeners, an incident that was caught on tape at a St. Louis airport.
Steve Bierfeldt, director of development for Campaign for Liberty , was selected for additional screening after officials spotted a metal box in his luggage that contained a large amount of cash and checks made out to the campaign.
Mr. Bierfeldt was attending his organization's regional conference in St. Louis and said he was keenly aware, as the situation unfolded March 29, of a controversial report issued to Missouri law enforcement officials intended to identify members of radical militia members.
"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center . "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."
Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers and other campaign literature, and was interrogated by TSA screeners and airport police at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport for nearly a half-hour before being allowed on his flight to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport .
The money he was carrying, more than $4,700, was in the form of cash and checks received from ticket sales, bumper stickers, books and other conference-related items.
Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the event on his iPhone, and provided a copy to The Washington Times for review.
On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis .
In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.
"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.
Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."
"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.
The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.
"You're going to have to prove why you have so much money to the DEA," a second unidentified officer said.
"We're going to help you understand [the law]," the TSA official said.
As he was being led away by the officers questioning him in the recording, another unidentified officer approached the group and asked Mr. Bierfeldt whether he worked for Mr. Paul and whether the money was campaign contributions.
Mr. Bierfeldt responded, "Yes," and was told by that officer that he was "free to go."
But one of the detaining officers said he was "not all that ready to let him walk" back onto the concourse, and held him for another five minutes.
"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'" Mr. Bierfeldt later said in an interview with The Times.
"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
"I don't believe I was legally required to tell them. Carrying cash is not a crime," Mr. Bierfeldt said. "It is a dangerous precedent if the government can order you to tell them where you get your money, and no law requires them to know where I work or where I spend my free time and where I go on vacation."
Asked whether his employment with Mr. Paul's committee prompted more scrutiny, Mr. Bierfeldt said: "I don't know, but it may not have helped that they were aware of where I worked.
"I was obviously with the campaign and I was aware of that report. I didn't want to tell them off the bat that I worked for the campaign and Ron Paul, because the report said we were potential members of the militia, and that's why I asked what my rights were," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
Mr. Paul, a U.S. House member and honorary chairman of the grass-roots lobbying organization, said he was "rather shocked" by the incident.
"This sort of encounter is a sign of bad things to come," said the Texas Republican and 2008 presidential-primary contender.
"People need to know their rights, and law enforcement officers, even if their intentions are noble, should never be allowed to bully and detain law-abiding citizens," Mr. Paul said. "Steve´s experience is a prime example of how our liberties are in real peril and that we need to wake up to what's going on in our country."
The TSA issued a statement Friday confirming that the metal box triggered the "need for additional screening," but said the behavior of the screening officer was inappropriate.
"Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area," the statement said.
"The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action," the statement said.
The Homeland Security agency further explained that carrying large amounts of cash through airport checkpoints "may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry," the TSA said.
Mr. Bierfeldt made his flight on time and said he had not decided whether to file a formal complaint against the officers or the agency.
"Everyone in these types of situations needs to stand up for their rights," said Mr. Bierfeldt, whose organization describes itself as supporting constitutional ideals and a free-market society.
The Campaign for Liberty already had objected to Missouri 's militia report. On March 24, Missouri Department of Public Safety Director John Britt sent a letter to all the named candidates acknowledging the state had made a mistake.
"I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations," Mr. Britt said. "Additionally, you may rest assured that the report is not posted on any website maintained by the State of Missouri ."
"The Missouri Department of Public Safety regrets any inconvenience or issues caused inadvertently by the unnecessary inclusion of certain components by MIAC in its militia report," Mr. Britt said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
