This Saturday, on Truth Farmer, the radio show for real people, we'll be visiting with Joan Veon! She has attended a myriad of meetings on the establishment and origins of the Global Governance we are seeing come to fullness, and also authored several books on the topic. She is a tremendous educator and has done an amazing amount of work on exposing this machine. Her most recent offering is a dvd titled, "When Central Bankers Rule the World" and it is a tremendous body of work! Very, very helpful for people to understand the machinations and history behind the global financial crises and the aims of the powers that be are in this debacle. You can read Joan's articles and order her books at her website:
http://www.womensgroup.org/.
Please tune in to Truth Farmer this weekend, February 20th at 5pm Central Time and feel free to call in with comments after the first half hour by dialing: 866 986 6397!
Listen online: www.libertynewsradio.com
Via the telephone: 801 769 2170
Or check the affiliates list at Liberty News Radio to see if your local station has the program. If not, call them up and tell them they should!
Thank you and God bless!
Doreen
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Mind Control-We are being manipulated...Surprise!
I tried to deal with the technical snafus on my radio show as best I could, but I failed entirely to be able to wrap up the point I was trying to make about the subtle, consistent, mind control that we are all under almost continually simply by watching the major networks and listening to mainstream and even many 'alternative' news shows. The main objective appears to be to keep people in a state of panic so that they cannot truthfully process the information and decide if there is indeed any action that should be taken or what action should be taken. Even many patriot radio shows strive to keep people in this 'emotional state'. This creates a dependence upon the host for their emotional fix, and makes many people feel like they are 'special' because of the knowledge they now have, creating yet another set of intellectual elitists. This 'elitism' helps to stop actual effective, concerted and righteous address of the problems that exist in reality. In truth, when you are given the eyes to see, it comes with duty...Share it, and share it in love. If you cannot help keep your neighbor free, who isn't necessarily designed to deal with the mental acrobatics necessary to negotiate all the intricacies of sovereignty legal arguments, you cannot keep your own freedom. So while the problems may be complex, the solutions have to workable and use the KISS principle.
Anyway, I want to try to wrap up the attempted radio show now, if for no other reason than to give myself a little bit of a sense of completion.
The fact is that a group of people have been concertedly shaping the publics ability to both digest, and assess the information we are given about current affairs, and this IS mass mind control. The people fostering this control have perpetuated the mantra "perception is reality".
Here's how it works, they use the Hegellian Dialectic. This is "problem, reaction, solution". They create the problem, watch the reaction and then provide the solution. They use seminars and the Delphi technique to bring leaders into line with their solutions.
A lot of times, the problem is completely false. They will create a problem in OUR MINDS. (Think of all the hoopla surrounding global warming recently), and then they will watch the hue and cry from the public and provide the solution via 'policy' for us. Inevitably, those policies are such that they contract our ability to
1) profit from our labor
2) be accountable for ourselves
3) manage our own lives and children
The group pushing this thought control is called the Aspen Institute. Their origins are in "German Intellectualism" and they have been working concertedly behind the scenes with the leaders of business, the legislators, and the judiciary since 1947 to forward their plan of nothing less than 'global collectivism and humanism'. They have been very, very successful and are rather like the Holy Grail insofar as think tanks and the shaping of society via thought (perception)control since their inception. These folks have been instrumental in destroying critical thinking.
Just have a read through their handbook (available on line) titled "US in the World" and how they instruct their advocates to handle questions and opposition regarding initiatives that restrain our national sovereignty:
America must not compromise its sovereignty/flexibility.
Basic Advice: Talk about the benefits of cooperation, for us and everyone; in an interconnected world, it's the key to making progress on shared problems, it's the right thing to do and it works. Emphasize effectiveness, teamwork.
"...The real question is, how can we accomplish what needs to get done? Independent action is important for solving some problems. But most of today's big global challenges -- like global terrorism and the growing threat of global warming -- simply can't be managed by any one nation, no matter how strong. Many other challenges are best handled by a team of nations, each doing what it does best. The key to making progress on these shared problems is making a shared effort. That's just common sense. Working well with others is part of being effective in an increasingly interconnected world..."
"...America has maintained a position of global strength for the past 50 years not by staying out of international agreements but by helping to shape them. So we know from experience that in the long run, cooperation gives us greater influence and flexibility of action than going it alone. International agreements help us predict what others are going to do, which enables us to lay out our own policies more intelligently. And each time we demonstrate that we can be a good team player, it's that much easier to bring our partners along the next time. 'My way or the highway' feels good in the short run -- but ultimately it limits our options and may lock us into acting alone when we don't have to..."
"...In an increasingly interconnected world, we succeed or fail together. As a decent and responsible nation, America should be committed to working with others to make our world a better place. When nations work together as a team, everyone benefits..."
"...Sharing innovative solutions and inspiring international teamwork is the American way. When we live up to that tradition, we earn the respect and cooperation of other nations -- and together, we get results..."
"...Everyone benefits from international agreements and laws that make the world a more orderly place. If we want other countries to follow those rules, we have to follow them as well. It's a matter of common sense and common decency -- "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." Americans understand this; that's why overwhelming majorities favor cooperative approaches over going it alone, even if we have to give up some freedom of action..."
Anyway, I want to try to wrap up the attempted radio show now, if for no other reason than to give myself a little bit of a sense of completion.
The fact is that a group of people have been concertedly shaping the publics ability to both digest, and assess the information we are given about current affairs, and this IS mass mind control. The people fostering this control have perpetuated the mantra "perception is reality".
Here's how it works, they use the Hegellian Dialectic. This is "problem, reaction, solution". They create the problem, watch the reaction and then provide the solution. They use seminars and the Delphi technique to bring leaders into line with their solutions.
A lot of times, the problem is completely false. They will create a problem in OUR MINDS. (Think of all the hoopla surrounding global warming recently), and then they will watch the hue and cry from the public and provide the solution via 'policy' for us. Inevitably, those policies are such that they contract our ability to
1) profit from our labor
2) be accountable for ourselves
3) manage our own lives and children
The group pushing this thought control is called the Aspen Institute. Their origins are in "German Intellectualism" and they have been working concertedly behind the scenes with the leaders of business, the legislators, and the judiciary since 1947 to forward their plan of nothing less than 'global collectivism and humanism'. They have been very, very successful and are rather like the Holy Grail insofar as think tanks and the shaping of society via thought (perception)control since their inception. These folks have been instrumental in destroying critical thinking.
Just have a read through their handbook (available on line) titled "US in the World" and how they instruct their advocates to handle questions and opposition regarding initiatives that restrain our national sovereignty:
America must not compromise its sovereignty/flexibility.
Basic Advice: Talk about the benefits of cooperation, for us and everyone; in an interconnected world, it's the key to making progress on shared problems, it's the right thing to do and it works. Emphasize effectiveness, teamwork.
"...The real question is, how can we accomplish what needs to get done? Independent action is important for solving some problems. But most of today's big global challenges -- like global terrorism and the growing threat of global warming -- simply can't be managed by any one nation, no matter how strong. Many other challenges are best handled by a team of nations, each doing what it does best. The key to making progress on these shared problems is making a shared effort. That's just common sense. Working well with others is part of being effective in an increasingly interconnected world..."
"...America has maintained a position of global strength for the past 50 years not by staying out of international agreements but by helping to shape them. So we know from experience that in the long run, cooperation gives us greater influence and flexibility of action than going it alone. International agreements help us predict what others are going to do, which enables us to lay out our own policies more intelligently. And each time we demonstrate that we can be a good team player, it's that much easier to bring our partners along the next time. 'My way or the highway' feels good in the short run -- but ultimately it limits our options and may lock us into acting alone when we don't have to..."
"...In an increasingly interconnected world, we succeed or fail together. As a decent and responsible nation, America should be committed to working with others to make our world a better place. When nations work together as a team, everyone benefits..."
"...Sharing innovative solutions and inspiring international teamwork is the American way. When we live up to that tradition, we earn the respect and cooperation of other nations -- and together, we get results..."
"...Everyone benefits from international agreements and laws that make the world a more orderly place. If we want other countries to follow those rules, we have to follow them as well. It's a matter of common sense and common decency -- "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." Americans understand this; that's why overwhelming majorities favor cooperative approaches over going it alone, even if we have to give up some freedom of action..."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Easter Bunny Reports "NAIS is Dead!!!!"
©Doreen Hannes
February 8, 2010
As I reported after returning from the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) meeting last August, rumors of the death of NAIS have been greatly exaggerated. (Read http://nonais.org/2009/09/05/ding-dong-nais-is-not-dead/) The USDA has finally admitted that they have too much negative publicity surrounding the name NAIS, and that they actually have to do what they tried to do in the first place: get the states to do their bidding on 'animal identification' and 'traceability' according to World Trade Organization standards. So yippee. They are only going to exercise their rule-making authority to control interstate commerce. Well, that's all they had the authority to do at the outset. So we should be giddy with excitement that they are openly proclaiming they will do just that now.
Should we be happier than a pig in a puddle because they openly stated that they will leave animals which never exit the state out of the new plan? They never had the authority to deal with those animals anyway…unless, of course, you take money from the USDA. Otherwise, that authority rests with your state. The USDA will continue to fund the states and work in a 'collaborative' way with states and industry (continuing the Public Private Partnership otherwise known as fascism) to develop the "minimum standards" that must be followed in order to participate in interstate commerce.
So, as many conversations with my compatriots in the fight against NAIS have alluded to, at last the USDA is pulling the commerce clause out and holding it up as their hammer for "minimum standards" that will be required by forthcoming regulations for 'disease traceability'. And why has the USDA taken to calling it 'disease traceability' instead of 'animal identification'? Because they only HAVE authority over the diseases! The FDA has authority over live animals on the farm (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114752.htm), even though the majority of people don't know this, and it is a very useful poker chip in the globalization game. It is called misdirection, and those of us who have been deeply involved in the fight against the NAIS are very aware of this agency's use of misinformation, disinformation, subterfuge and general sneakiness in foisting upon us their WTO driven desire that will create captive supply for export of the entire domestic livestock population.
The only official document available on the "NAIS not NAIS" program is a seven page Q and A available at the new page for "NAIS not NAIS" called Animal Disease Traceability. (http://www.aphis. usda.gov/ publications/ animal_health/ content/printabl e_version/ faq_traceability .pdf). It's only 7 pages, so if you have read the previous 1200 pages of USDA documents on this program, it's a walk in the park.
One of the first questions that one asks when told "NAIS is Dead!", (aside from "what's it's new name?") is "What about all the people who are in the Premises Database with PIN's already?" According to the 7-page document, they stay in that database.
How about animals that are already identified with the "840" tags for NAIS? They also stay in the database. What about the "840" tags themselves? Well, the USDA and States will keep using them.
Are they going to halt further registrations into the NAIS database? Heck no! They'll keep registering properties and will also be using a 'unique location identifier' for this kinder, gentler NAIS that the States will run for us.
Why are they re-using the first two prongs of NAIS? Aside from the unstated fact that they are using them because they have to use them to be compliant with OIE (World Animal Health Organization) guidelines, they say it's because of the tremendous amount of money spent developing NAIS already even though it is un-Constitutional.
How much money? It's government math, so it's likely done by consensus as opposed to literal whole numbers that add up- you know, like 2+2=4. Consensus would make it possible for 2+2 to equal 5. Anyway, figures cited by various officials are anywhere from $120 million to $180 million. Less than 60¢ per person, so almost nothing when compared to the monstrous 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities we are currently carrying. Believe me, when I say I am not for government waste at all, but when an agency has spent this much time and money on an unfruitful program, isn't it better to simply fully knock it in the head instead of changing the name and playing "Hide and Go Seek" with the people who have adamantly opposed this program? Why couldn't the USDA do the only truly Constitutional thing with this international-trade driven program and let those who want to deal in international markets do this to themselves through the Export Verification Services department of the USDA? Well, if they did that, not only would they have to actually be fully open and transparent, they would need to let the public in on the big secret that the United States is no longer in charge of its own policies, rather they are obligated to follow the Sanitary PhytoSanitary (SPS) directives of the World Trade Organization agencies, namely Codex Alimentarius, the OIE and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention).
And we still have the very real issue of the massive database for premises registration (or the unique location allocator) having no public or verifiable oversight to check whether or not people who have been told they were removed were in fact removed from that database. So if NAIS is dead, why not allow the database to be annihilated? Obviously, they are still following the plan.
What about the states that have passed legislation designed to constrain NAIS from becoming mandatory within their boundaries? How will this new disease traceability program affect them? Well, since this is NOT NAIS and the regulations aren't yet written, the states will have to wait to find out what requirements they MUST MEET in order to participate in interstate commerce. There's your hammer.
So how powerful is the interstate commerce clause? Pretty dang powerful. And if people who dealt in the local food movement fully understood Wickard vs. Filburn, (http://conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn) they would feel no consolation whatsoever from the USDA's statement that they are not interested in regulating livestock that stay within the state.
In a nutshell, this 1942 Supreme Court case found that since Filburn had accepted money as part of the Agricultural Adjustments Act and then grew wheat to feed his own livestock, that he was not only subject to the regulation of the USDA by accepting that money, but also, since he grew wheat, he hadn't purchased it, and had he not grown it, he would have had to purchase wheat which would have likely come through interstate commerce. Therefore, his planting of wheat affected interstate commerce and solidified the USDA's jurisdiction over his actions.
If you transplant "tomato" for wheat you can see how sinister this ruling truly is. If you grow tomatoes, you won't be buying them, so if you don't buy them, and since the store bought tomatoes likely cross state lines in their movement, you are affecting interstate commerce by growing tomatoes….This is precedent, and it is a very, very dangerous precedent. So taking money or help from the USDA to establish your local farmer's market is going to put you into a relationship that is highly precarious for freedom.
The interstate commerce clause was not designed to hammer states into submission to federal or international agency trade objectives, it was to stop states from unfairly discriminating against each other and to enable us to be a strong union of sovereign states that could actually feed itself and prosper. The only thing to do is to keep fighting with full knowledge and to get the States to exercise their duty to protect the Citizens from an overarching Federal government. We need states to completely free up direct trade between farmers and consumers and we need states to work together to create their own criteria for exchange of goods across state lines.
Do we have to 'stay engaged' in conversations with the USDA on this "New Not NAIS"? Yes, to keep telling them to go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here, thank you. They should tend the borders, control and actually inspect the imports, run the disease programs that worked and were not massive consolidations of power in federal hands, and for cryin' out loud INSPECT the packing plants and stop trying to make consumers believe that farmers and ranchers are responsible for sloppy slaughtering!
Also, go ahead and leave a bunch of the milk chocolate rabbits for us. Chocolate is one thing we probably should import, but certainly not at the cost of our freedom and sovereignty.
February 8, 2010
As I reported after returning from the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) meeting last August, rumors of the death of NAIS have been greatly exaggerated. (Read http://nonais.org/2009/09/05/ding-dong-nais-is-not-dead/) The USDA has finally admitted that they have too much negative publicity surrounding the name NAIS, and that they actually have to do what they tried to do in the first place: get the states to do their bidding on 'animal identification' and 'traceability' according to World Trade Organization standards. So yippee. They are only going to exercise their rule-making authority to control interstate commerce. Well, that's all they had the authority to do at the outset. So we should be giddy with excitement that they are openly proclaiming they will do just that now.
Should we be happier than a pig in a puddle because they openly stated that they will leave animals which never exit the state out of the new plan? They never had the authority to deal with those animals anyway…unless, of course, you take money from the USDA. Otherwise, that authority rests with your state. The USDA will continue to fund the states and work in a 'collaborative' way with states and industry (continuing the Public Private Partnership otherwise known as fascism) to develop the "minimum standards" that must be followed in order to participate in interstate commerce.
So, as many conversations with my compatriots in the fight against NAIS have alluded to, at last the USDA is pulling the commerce clause out and holding it up as their hammer for "minimum standards" that will be required by forthcoming regulations for 'disease traceability'. And why has the USDA taken to calling it 'disease traceability' instead of 'animal identification'? Because they only HAVE authority over the diseases! The FDA has authority over live animals on the farm (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114752.htm), even though the majority of people don't know this, and it is a very useful poker chip in the globalization game. It is called misdirection, and those of us who have been deeply involved in the fight against the NAIS are very aware of this agency's use of misinformation, disinformation, subterfuge and general sneakiness in foisting upon us their WTO driven desire that will create captive supply for export of the entire domestic livestock population.
The only official document available on the "NAIS not NAIS" program is a seven page Q and A available at the new page for "NAIS not NAIS" called Animal Disease Traceability. (http://www.aphis. usda.gov/ publications/ animal_health/ content/printabl e_version/ faq_traceability .pdf). It's only 7 pages, so if you have read the previous 1200 pages of USDA documents on this program, it's a walk in the park.
One of the first questions that one asks when told "NAIS is Dead!", (aside from "what's it's new name?") is "What about all the people who are in the Premises Database with PIN's already?" According to the 7-page document, they stay in that database.
How about animals that are already identified with the "840" tags for NAIS? They also stay in the database. What about the "840" tags themselves? Well, the USDA and States will keep using them.
Are they going to halt further registrations into the NAIS database? Heck no! They'll keep registering properties and will also be using a 'unique location identifier' for this kinder, gentler NAIS that the States will run for us.
Why are they re-using the first two prongs of NAIS? Aside from the unstated fact that they are using them because they have to use them to be compliant with OIE (World Animal Health Organization) guidelines, they say it's because of the tremendous amount of money spent developing NAIS already even though it is un-Constitutional.
How much money? It's government math, so it's likely done by consensus as opposed to literal whole numbers that add up- you know, like 2+2=4. Consensus would make it possible for 2+2 to equal 5. Anyway, figures cited by various officials are anywhere from $120 million to $180 million. Less than 60¢ per person, so almost nothing when compared to the monstrous 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities we are currently carrying. Believe me, when I say I am not for government waste at all, but when an agency has spent this much time and money on an unfruitful program, isn't it better to simply fully knock it in the head instead of changing the name and playing "Hide and Go Seek" with the people who have adamantly opposed this program? Why couldn't the USDA do the only truly Constitutional thing with this international-trade driven program and let those who want to deal in international markets do this to themselves through the Export Verification Services department of the USDA? Well, if they did that, not only would they have to actually be fully open and transparent, they would need to let the public in on the big secret that the United States is no longer in charge of its own policies, rather they are obligated to follow the Sanitary PhytoSanitary (SPS) directives of the World Trade Organization agencies, namely Codex Alimentarius, the OIE and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention).
And we still have the very real issue of the massive database for premises registration (or the unique location allocator) having no public or verifiable oversight to check whether or not people who have been told they were removed were in fact removed from that database. So if NAIS is dead, why not allow the database to be annihilated? Obviously, they are still following the plan.
What about the states that have passed legislation designed to constrain NAIS from becoming mandatory within their boundaries? How will this new disease traceability program affect them? Well, since this is NOT NAIS and the regulations aren't yet written, the states will have to wait to find out what requirements they MUST MEET in order to participate in interstate commerce. There's your hammer.
So how powerful is the interstate commerce clause? Pretty dang powerful. And if people who dealt in the local food movement fully understood Wickard vs. Filburn, (http://conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn) they would feel no consolation whatsoever from the USDA's statement that they are not interested in regulating livestock that stay within the state.
In a nutshell, this 1942 Supreme Court case found that since Filburn had accepted money as part of the Agricultural Adjustments Act and then grew wheat to feed his own livestock, that he was not only subject to the regulation of the USDA by accepting that money, but also, since he grew wheat, he hadn't purchased it, and had he not grown it, he would have had to purchase wheat which would have likely come through interstate commerce. Therefore, his planting of wheat affected interstate commerce and solidified the USDA's jurisdiction over his actions.
If you transplant "tomato" for wheat you can see how sinister this ruling truly is. If you grow tomatoes, you won't be buying them, so if you don't buy them, and since the store bought tomatoes likely cross state lines in their movement, you are affecting interstate commerce by growing tomatoes….This is precedent, and it is a very, very dangerous precedent. So taking money or help from the USDA to establish your local farmer's market is going to put you into a relationship that is highly precarious for freedom.
The interstate commerce clause was not designed to hammer states into submission to federal or international agency trade objectives, it was to stop states from unfairly discriminating against each other and to enable us to be a strong union of sovereign states that could actually feed itself and prosper. The only thing to do is to keep fighting with full knowledge and to get the States to exercise their duty to protect the Citizens from an overarching Federal government. We need states to completely free up direct trade between farmers and consumers and we need states to work together to create their own criteria for exchange of goods across state lines.
Do we have to 'stay engaged' in conversations with the USDA on this "New Not NAIS"? Yes, to keep telling them to go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here, thank you. They should tend the borders, control and actually inspect the imports, run the disease programs that worked and were not massive consolidations of power in federal hands, and for cryin' out loud INSPECT the packing plants and stop trying to make consumers believe that farmers and ranchers are responsible for sloppy slaughtering!
Also, go ahead and leave a bunch of the milk chocolate rabbits for us. Chocolate is one thing we probably should import, but certainly not at the cost of our freedom and sovereignty.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Spring Food Shortage??
Go to the original article and click through the links. If I were more than a heckuvagoogler in internet abilities, I would have these all clickable for you, but I am much more in tume with duct tape and hammers than computers, so please, if this sparks your interest, go to the original and read the background links.
Thanks!
============
Farmers across America and in many other parts of the world are calling 2009 the worst harvest they’ve ever seen – largely due to extended bouts of bad weather
January 7, 2010
By Michael Hampton
You have maybe two months to stock up on the necessities of life before food prices rise dramatically, potentially prompting a food panic, widespread famine, and quite possibly the long-expected collapse of the U.S. economy.
Farmers across America and in many other parts of the world are calling 2009 the worst harvest they’ve ever seen in their lives, owing largely to extended bouts of bad weather. At the same time the U.S. Department of Agriculture is officially forecasting bumper crops, while grain elevators stand nearly empty and close to three-fourths of the country’s farmland is in areas declared eligible for federal disaster assistance due to failed crops.
A popular farmers’ Web site is chock full of stories of entire crops of soybeans rejected for moisture damage, long delays in harvesting corn only to find out the corn is moldy, damaged or too light to be used as animal feed or even ethanol, and farmers unsure if they’ll even have a farm for another year due to the losses they’ve taken.
Most agricultural products are purchased in futures, which are promises to deliver a quantity of a commodity at a future date. Futures carry many risks, prominent among them the possibility that the commodity simply won’t be available at the promised delivery date. While futures prices are set by the market, some of the information used to set the prices comes from the USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates reports. The unrealistic 2009 bumper crop predictions in its recent reports, which may have seemed reasonable months ago before 2009’s long string of bad weather but which USDA has failed to revise, drove futures prices artificially low.
But grain futures prices have already risen well above the USDA’s latest projections as the corn harvest threatens to drag on into March in some areas of the country, thanks to an unusually wet 2009 and unprecedented fall flooding in the Midwest.
The good news is that even with 2009 being the worst harvest in human memory, there will still be plenty of food in the U.S. to feed everyone in the U.S. The bad news — if you’re in the U.S. — is that the food won’t be used to feed everyone in the U.S.
It seems China has finally figured out what to do with all the U.S. dollars it’s holding. You’ll recall that the Federal Reserve took some pretty extreme measures over the last two years, ostensibly to save the U.S. economy. In fact, those measures have set us up the bomb. For decades China has been buying U.S. debt and financing Americans’ credit addiction as well as the government’s massive spending on millions of projects it has no business being involved in. But, it seems, they’ve had enough of the dollar and are about to pull the plug.
In the meantime, China has been using those dollars to buy every morsel of American food it can get its hands on. Combined with 2009’s bad weather and the USDA’s ridiculous numbers, this prompted a late August soybean shortage which is expected to continue through 2010.
The U.S. has a very good reason to fudge the numbers on crop estimates. If it published realistic numbers, and crop futures prices rose sharply, three things would likely happen: Wall Street would take massive losses, inflation fears would cause investors to dump bonds, frustrating the government’s attempts to finance its incredible expanding debt, and most importantly, China, whose currency is tied closely to the U.S. dollar, would allow it to appreciate. That alone would likely send the U.S. dollar into freefall; all three would mean utter economic collapse.
Of course, you can’t fool the market for long; as noted above, futures prices are already well above the USDA’s numbers. All they really managed to do with their numbers game was buy the U.S. dollar another year of life.
One market analyst believes that the 2010 food shortage will be the catalyst which not only brings about the collapse of the U.S. economy, but takes down Great Britain and Japan with it.
While a food crisis was unavoidable to some extent because of the abnormal weather and financial crisis, the total panic which will soon grip world agricultural markets is a creation of the USDA and its fictitious production estimates. If not for the USDA’s interference, food prices would have risen in the first half of 2009 in anticipation of the 2009/10 shortage. The United States Department of Agriculture has caused incalculable damage to the world economy by encouraging overconsumption of rapidly diminishing food supplies.
Once the 2010 Food Crisis starts, confidence in the US government will be shattered as a result of the USDA’s faulty estimates. The starvation and misery caused by higher food prices will also create a lot of anger . . . — Market Skeptics
In this scenario, rural banks will begin failing rapidly, especially in the Midwest, and the inevitable bailouts will drive up U.S. debt further. These bailouts, combined with the Chinese allowing the yuan to appreciate, will erode confidence in the U.S. dollar to the point that foreign banks and investors begin dumping U.S. debt at fire sale prices. At that point the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to print money, leading directly to hyperinflation.
I shouldn’t have to tell you what hyperinflation will look like, but in case you need a reminder, it will likely make the Great Depression look like a minor recession. Tens of millions of people who have never known want in their entire lives are going to be shocked to wake up broke and hungry, with no idea what happened or why it happened to them. The government will almost certainly be unable to fulfill its promises of food stamps, social security and other such welfare programs. Food riots are likely and people will almost certainly die when the government attempts to put them down.
Worst of all, almost nobody will assign blame where it truly belongs: central banks and fiat currency.
Market Skeptics and many other foreign investors I’ve seen quoted widely in foreign media but virtually never in the U.S., recommend investing in agriculture, except derivatives, and in precious metals. I also recommend you invest in as much nonperishable food as you can lay hands on in the next two months, at least a year’s supply if you can manage it. If there’s no collapse, you can eat it, and if there is, you’ll at least have something to eat. And when you read a headline such as “Yuan allowed to rise versus dollar,” it’s time to head for the hills.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2010/01/07/spring-food-crisis-may-trigger-economic-collapse/
Thanks!
============
Farmers across America and in many other parts of the world are calling 2009 the worst harvest they’ve ever seen – largely due to extended bouts of bad weather
January 7, 2010
By Michael Hampton
You have maybe two months to stock up on the necessities of life before food prices rise dramatically, potentially prompting a food panic, widespread famine, and quite possibly the long-expected collapse of the U.S. economy.
Farmers across America and in many other parts of the world are calling 2009 the worst harvest they’ve ever seen in their lives, owing largely to extended bouts of bad weather. At the same time the U.S. Department of Agriculture is officially forecasting bumper crops, while grain elevators stand nearly empty and close to three-fourths of the country’s farmland is in areas declared eligible for federal disaster assistance due to failed crops.
A popular farmers’ Web site is chock full of stories of entire crops of soybeans rejected for moisture damage, long delays in harvesting corn only to find out the corn is moldy, damaged or too light to be used as animal feed or even ethanol, and farmers unsure if they’ll even have a farm for another year due to the losses they’ve taken.
Most agricultural products are purchased in futures, which are promises to deliver a quantity of a commodity at a future date. Futures carry many risks, prominent among them the possibility that the commodity simply won’t be available at the promised delivery date. While futures prices are set by the market, some of the information used to set the prices comes from the USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates reports. The unrealistic 2009 bumper crop predictions in its recent reports, which may have seemed reasonable months ago before 2009’s long string of bad weather but which USDA has failed to revise, drove futures prices artificially low.
But grain futures prices have already risen well above the USDA’s latest projections as the corn harvest threatens to drag on into March in some areas of the country, thanks to an unusually wet 2009 and unprecedented fall flooding in the Midwest.
The good news is that even with 2009 being the worst harvest in human memory, there will still be plenty of food in the U.S. to feed everyone in the U.S. The bad news — if you’re in the U.S. — is that the food won’t be used to feed everyone in the U.S.
It seems China has finally figured out what to do with all the U.S. dollars it’s holding. You’ll recall that the Federal Reserve took some pretty extreme measures over the last two years, ostensibly to save the U.S. economy. In fact, those measures have set us up the bomb. For decades China has been buying U.S. debt and financing Americans’ credit addiction as well as the government’s massive spending on millions of projects it has no business being involved in. But, it seems, they’ve had enough of the dollar and are about to pull the plug.
In the meantime, China has been using those dollars to buy every morsel of American food it can get its hands on. Combined with 2009’s bad weather and the USDA’s ridiculous numbers, this prompted a late August soybean shortage which is expected to continue through 2010.
The U.S. has a very good reason to fudge the numbers on crop estimates. If it published realistic numbers, and crop futures prices rose sharply, three things would likely happen: Wall Street would take massive losses, inflation fears would cause investors to dump bonds, frustrating the government’s attempts to finance its incredible expanding debt, and most importantly, China, whose currency is tied closely to the U.S. dollar, would allow it to appreciate. That alone would likely send the U.S. dollar into freefall; all three would mean utter economic collapse.
Of course, you can’t fool the market for long; as noted above, futures prices are already well above the USDA’s numbers. All they really managed to do with their numbers game was buy the U.S. dollar another year of life.
One market analyst believes that the 2010 food shortage will be the catalyst which not only brings about the collapse of the U.S. economy, but takes down Great Britain and Japan with it.
While a food crisis was unavoidable to some extent because of the abnormal weather and financial crisis, the total panic which will soon grip world agricultural markets is a creation of the USDA and its fictitious production estimates. If not for the USDA’s interference, food prices would have risen in the first half of 2009 in anticipation of the 2009/10 shortage. The United States Department of Agriculture has caused incalculable damage to the world economy by encouraging overconsumption of rapidly diminishing food supplies.
Once the 2010 Food Crisis starts, confidence in the US government will be shattered as a result of the USDA’s faulty estimates. The starvation and misery caused by higher food prices will also create a lot of anger . . . — Market Skeptics
In this scenario, rural banks will begin failing rapidly, especially in the Midwest, and the inevitable bailouts will drive up U.S. debt further. These bailouts, combined with the Chinese allowing the yuan to appreciate, will erode confidence in the U.S. dollar to the point that foreign banks and investors begin dumping U.S. debt at fire sale prices. At that point the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to print money, leading directly to hyperinflation.
I shouldn’t have to tell you what hyperinflation will look like, but in case you need a reminder, it will likely make the Great Depression look like a minor recession. Tens of millions of people who have never known want in their entire lives are going to be shocked to wake up broke and hungry, with no idea what happened or why it happened to them. The government will almost certainly be unable to fulfill its promises of food stamps, social security and other such welfare programs. Food riots are likely and people will almost certainly die when the government attempts to put them down.
Worst of all, almost nobody will assign blame where it truly belongs: central banks and fiat currency.
Market Skeptics and many other foreign investors I’ve seen quoted widely in foreign media but virtually never in the U.S., recommend investing in agriculture, except derivatives, and in precious metals. I also recommend you invest in as much nonperishable food as you can lay hands on in the next two months, at least a year’s supply if you can manage it. If there’s no collapse, you can eat it, and if there is, you’ll at least have something to eat. And when you read a headline such as “Yuan allowed to rise versus dollar,” it’s time to head for the hills.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2010/01/07/spring-food-crisis-may-trigger-economic-collapse/
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Hearing on Use of NAIS Tags at Sale Barns
© Doreen Hannes
On Thursday, January 13th, 2010 there was a Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee hearing at the Capitol on the usage of National Animal Identification System "840" tags by the veterinarians at sale barns across Missouri.
The hearing was to allay the confusion amongst sale barns and determine whether or not the Department of Agriculture was following the voluntary parameters set for NAIS in Missouri by the usage of these "840" tags.
The NAIS (National Animal Identification System) is a 3 part program. The first prong is Premises registration with a seven character number permanently assigned to a particular location housing or holding animals. The second prong is the use of these "840" tags which necessitate a premise id number to be used. The third component is the reporting of movements from the ascribed premises and various other things such as vaccinations and tag replacements and "sightings".
Near the beginning of December it came to light that many sale barn markets in the state of Missouri were using the 840 tags on cows going through chutes who had no official identification. It was reported that as of January 1st, 2010, all cows, with or without official identification, would receive the 840 tags when they went through chutes for health tests or pregnancy checks Different markets reported different criteria for this NAIS "840" identification of cows. Some producers reported they were told they "had to" use the 840 tags in order to sell cattle at some sale barns.
In 2008, the Missouri General Assembly passed SB931, prohibiting the Department of Agriculture from mandating or otherwise forcing participation in NAIS, and allowing for the immediate removal from the program of anyone who was assigned a premises id unless they were part of a disease control program or an ongoing disease investigation.
This hearing was to clear up confusion on the law as it applies to both the state of Missouri and the veterinarians licensed by the state. Chairman, Senator Chuck Purgason, stated, "We want to clear up confusion, and to make sure veterinarians are not violating people's rights regarding this program."
Missouri State Veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods and Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Jon Hagler, did not appear at the beginning of the hearing. A representative from the Department of Ag and a veterinarian with the State Vet's office, Dr. Linda Hickle, appeared, but knew little of policy and stated that the Secretary and State Vet were not aware that they were to be present at this hearing.
Three other individuals testified at the hearing and during the last testimony, the State veterinarian and Secretary of Agriculture came into the hearing room.
They testified that they had no official written policy on the usage of the "840" tags and had communicated with the market veterinarians by face to face contact regarding the allocation of the 100,000 "840" tags the Department has received from the USDA. They stated they had no particular agreement as to the distribution and application of the NAIS tags, but that the application of the tags was to be at the discretion of the market veterinarian.
The Department was instructed by the Committee to write and distribute to all market veterinarians instructions on the usage of these "840" tags and to inform the market veterinarians that the application of "840" tags was to be done solely at the request of the producer in compliance with the law of the State of Missouri.
No instructions or inquiries were made into how any redress is to be achieved by those who may already have been put into the NAIS program without their knowledge or consent by buying or selling cattle through a market that was applying the tags to all cows from January 1st through the time of the distribution of the letter requiring compliance with the state law.
On Thursday, January 13th, 2010 there was a Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee hearing at the Capitol on the usage of National Animal Identification System "840" tags by the veterinarians at sale barns across Missouri.
The hearing was to allay the confusion amongst sale barns and determine whether or not the Department of Agriculture was following the voluntary parameters set for NAIS in Missouri by the usage of these "840" tags.
The NAIS (National Animal Identification System) is a 3 part program. The first prong is Premises registration with a seven character number permanently assigned to a particular location housing or holding animals. The second prong is the use of these "840" tags which necessitate a premise id number to be used. The third component is the reporting of movements from the ascribed premises and various other things such as vaccinations and tag replacements and "sightings".
Near the beginning of December it came to light that many sale barn markets in the state of Missouri were using the 840 tags on cows going through chutes who had no official identification. It was reported that as of January 1st, 2010, all cows, with or without official identification, would receive the 840 tags when they went through chutes for health tests or pregnancy checks Different markets reported different criteria for this NAIS "840" identification of cows. Some producers reported they were told they "had to" use the 840 tags in order to sell cattle at some sale barns.
In 2008, the Missouri General Assembly passed SB931, prohibiting the Department of Agriculture from mandating or otherwise forcing participation in NAIS, and allowing for the immediate removal from the program of anyone who was assigned a premises id unless they were part of a disease control program or an ongoing disease investigation.
This hearing was to clear up confusion on the law as it applies to both the state of Missouri and the veterinarians licensed by the state. Chairman, Senator Chuck Purgason, stated, "We want to clear up confusion, and to make sure veterinarians are not violating people's rights regarding this program."
Missouri State Veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods and Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Jon Hagler, did not appear at the beginning of the hearing. A representative from the Department of Ag and a veterinarian with the State Vet's office, Dr. Linda Hickle, appeared, but knew little of policy and stated that the Secretary and State Vet were not aware that they were to be present at this hearing.
Three other individuals testified at the hearing and during the last testimony, the State veterinarian and Secretary of Agriculture came into the hearing room.
They testified that they had no official written policy on the usage of the "840" tags and had communicated with the market veterinarians by face to face contact regarding the allocation of the 100,000 "840" tags the Department has received from the USDA. They stated they had no particular agreement as to the distribution and application of the NAIS tags, but that the application of the tags was to be at the discretion of the market veterinarian.
The Department was instructed by the Committee to write and distribute to all market veterinarians instructions on the usage of these "840" tags and to inform the market veterinarians that the application of "840" tags was to be done solely at the request of the producer in compliance with the law of the State of Missouri.
No instructions or inquiries were made into how any redress is to be achieved by those who may already have been put into the NAIS program without their knowledge or consent by buying or selling cattle through a market that was applying the tags to all cows from January 1st through the time of the distribution of the letter requiring compliance with the state law.
Ahhh, the Census....
A Warning to Pastors - The 2010 Census
The Constitution of the United States requires an enumeration of the people be made every ten years for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives to serve in the House of Representatives. This year, 2010, is a year in which this enumeration is to be done.
However, the Federal government has, over the years, expanded the scope of the census to a point that I believe is not only beyond the bounds of it’s Constitutional authority, but dangerous as well. One facet of the 2010 census that is very dangerous is the effort by the Federal Government to enlist the help of churches to conduct the census.
Last week the church that I pastor received a package of materials from the local office of the Census Bureau. In this package was a letter inviting us “to participate in our faith based initiative to promote the Census…”. The letter states, “2010 Census: Your help is not just wanted, it’s needed”. Some of the help that the Census Bureau is asking from the church is to advertise that they are hiring in our area. The letter also states that, “We are looking for sites in the community that can be used as Questionnaire Assistance Centers for a 4-6 week period during the Census mail-out operation. We are also looking for additional sites with tables and chairs to conduct testing and training sessions such as a church fellowship hall or community room.”
Pastors, beware! Having served on the local school board about 20 years ago, I have first hand experience with how the Federal Government creeps in and eventually takes over. Consider what has happened to local government and our school systems since they have received money from the Federal Government. Though they contributed only about 6% of our budget when I was on the school board, the Federal Government had the final say in what could or could not be done. It is control that they will never relinquish. Make no mistake about it, the same thing will happen if a church allows the Census Bureau to set up shop in our Lord’s Church.
The scripture is clear concerning the fact that Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. Speaking of Jesus, the Bible says in Colossians chapter 1, verse 18,
“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
Once the Federal Government is allowed into the church, they will demand that they have the preeminence. You may ask, “How so?” Well, Jesus Christ, who is the head of the body, has given us a command in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16 verse 15,
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.”
Already the Federal Government has restricted when and where the Gospel may be preached. No longer do school children begin their day with scripture reading and prayer in government schools. No longer may Christian chaplains in the Navy pray in Jesus’ name at ceremonies and other official functions. We lost these and other battles because we compromised. Now they are moving the field of battle from the public square into the church itself. If we give place, they will have the final say concerning what the church may or may not do. Will the pastor and members of a church which allows the Census Bureau to set up shop be allowed to preach the Gospel to the Census workers or to those who come to apply for employment? Or will they be required to withhold the Word from them, in disobedience to Christ’s command? What a sin it would be to allow ourselves to be silenced within the very walls of the church building! Once they are allowed in, and especially if a church receives money from the government, the will never willingly relinquish control.
My brothers, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Pastor Glenn Guest
For further reference:
Toolkit for Reaching the Faith-Based Community
http://2010.census.gov/partners/toolkits/toolkits-faithbased.php
Obama Faith Council Debates Requiring Fed. Fund Recipients to Remove Religious Symbols - LifeSiteNews.com
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011506.html
The Constitution of the United States requires an enumeration of the people be made every ten years for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives to serve in the House of Representatives. This year, 2010, is a year in which this enumeration is to be done.
However, the Federal government has, over the years, expanded the scope of the census to a point that I believe is not only beyond the bounds of it’s Constitutional authority, but dangerous as well. One facet of the 2010 census that is very dangerous is the effort by the Federal Government to enlist the help of churches to conduct the census.
Last week the church that I pastor received a package of materials from the local office of the Census Bureau. In this package was a letter inviting us “to participate in our faith based initiative to promote the Census…”. The letter states, “2010 Census: Your help is not just wanted, it’s needed”. Some of the help that the Census Bureau is asking from the church is to advertise that they are hiring in our area. The letter also states that, “We are looking for sites in the community that can be used as Questionnaire Assistance Centers for a 4-6 week period during the Census mail-out operation. We are also looking for additional sites with tables and chairs to conduct testing and training sessions such as a church fellowship hall or community room.”
Pastors, beware! Having served on the local school board about 20 years ago, I have first hand experience with how the Federal Government creeps in and eventually takes over. Consider what has happened to local government and our school systems since they have received money from the Federal Government. Though they contributed only about 6% of our budget when I was on the school board, the Federal Government had the final say in what could or could not be done. It is control that they will never relinquish. Make no mistake about it, the same thing will happen if a church allows the Census Bureau to set up shop in our Lord’s Church.
The scripture is clear concerning the fact that Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. Speaking of Jesus, the Bible says in Colossians chapter 1, verse 18,
“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
Once the Federal Government is allowed into the church, they will demand that they have the preeminence. You may ask, “How so?” Well, Jesus Christ, who is the head of the body, has given us a command in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16 verse 15,
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.”
Already the Federal Government has restricted when and where the Gospel may be preached. No longer do school children begin their day with scripture reading and prayer in government schools. No longer may Christian chaplains in the Navy pray in Jesus’ name at ceremonies and other official functions. We lost these and other battles because we compromised. Now they are moving the field of battle from the public square into the church itself. If we give place, they will have the final say concerning what the church may or may not do. Will the pastor and members of a church which allows the Census Bureau to set up shop be allowed to preach the Gospel to the Census workers or to those who come to apply for employment? Or will they be required to withhold the Word from them, in disobedience to Christ’s command? What a sin it would be to allow ourselves to be silenced within the very walls of the church building! Once they are allowed in, and especially if a church receives money from the government, the will never willingly relinquish control.
My brothers, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Pastor Glenn Guest
For further reference:
Toolkit for Reaching the Faith-Based Community
http://2010.census.gov/partners/toolkits/toolkits-faithbased.php
Obama Faith Council Debates Requiring Fed. Fund Recipients to Remove Religious Symbols - LifeSiteNews.com
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011506.html
Saturday, January 9, 2010
2009: A Near Catastrophic Year For Dairy Farmers
People, we have GOT to realize that our ability to provide food for ourselves is actually a national security issue. Please read this article below which only touches on the issue of the WTO in destroying our ability feed our own population....Let me know what you think. Sometimes it feels like I am speaking into a black hole and things are not resonating with my fellow countrymen.
River Reporter
Farms are closing at an alarming rate
By TOM KANE
REGION & NATION — Things couldn’t be much worse than the way the dairy farmers are rewarded or, more accurately, not rewarded, for the quality and quantity of the milk that America ’s dairy farms produce.
And it’s not because they haven’t been articulate about what is needed: a real connection between the dairy farmers’ cost of production and the price they get for their milk.
The federal government and the dairy cooperatives, called coops, have failed dairy farmers who have been falling by the wayside this year and for the last 10 years. Dairy farms have been disappearing at an alarming rate and nothing is being done to staunch the extinction.
Two senators from Pennsylvania , Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, are working hard to solve this. They have created legislation, called the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009 – S-1645, and farm organizations across the Northeast and farmers in other milk-producing states are getting local, state and federal elected officials to urge its passage.
“Support for these resolutions by local government officials highlights their understanding of the severe damage being inflicted on their communities by the on-going dairy farm economic crisis,” said Arden Tewksbury of the Progressive Agriculture Organization (Pro Ag).
Pro Ag, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, the American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association, Family Farm Defenders and many other farming organizations are supporting what is being called the Specter-Casey Bill.
One of the problems that passing such a bill will face is what is called the “global trade mentality” that is prevalent among legislators and business people. Under global trade agreements, it is easier to bring in products that can hurt American industries, in this instance, milk producers and distributors. “Without fair raw milk prices that can’t be undercut by the global trade movement, local dairy farmers will not survive,” Tewksbury said. “The once vibrant rural communities will continue to collapse and consumers will not have access to fresh, local milk and dairy products.”
Recently, New York State Senator John Bonacic urged dairy farmers to storm Albany in order to resolve the plight of New York dairy farmers. “Governor Patterson ignored my plea to use the Obama stimulus money to help solve the inequities that exist in New York State ,” he said. “If the legislators won’t come to you, then bring the message to them. Go to Albany in numbers and make them listen.”
Subsequent to Bonacic’s suggestion, dairy farmers traveled to Albany but had little effect on any action by the state.
Recently, the Congress passed a stop-gap measure with legislation that will pump $300 million into the dairy industry to relieve farmers. This one-time payment, as welcome as it is, will not change the convoluted process used by the feds and the dairy coops to set the price of milk, some of which date back to the Great Depression and even further.
Dairy farmers generally are disappointed with the coops that are not helping farmers get the best milk price. Many say that the coops, even though dairy farmers are on their boards, are in the business to maximize their profits, largely ignoring the plight of the dairy producers.
Local dairy farmer Brian Smith, who is also the chairman of the Wayne County Commissioners, won a seat on the board of the local Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) board—the regional coop—when he campaigned on the poor job the coops are doing for the dairy farmers.
One of Smith’s main concerns is that dairy farmers cannot compete on the world market because of the cheap milk products that are available in foreign markets. He says the coops promote the importing of milk products, despite what it is doing to the poor price dairy farmers are getting today.
“I dispute the word promote,” said Monica Massey, DFA vice president of corporate communications. “We have to operate in a global dairy environment. That’s the reality. There are no fences around our country. If we want to export milk products, and we do, then we need to be prepared to accept imports. It is our aim to minimize imports. We export 10 to one. We exported 1.2 million pounds of milk last year and imported one million pounds. We can not limit imports unreasonably. The World Trade Organization (WTO) says we have to do this.”
Dairy farmers say that the coops are not the only organizations that are dragging their feet on the issue of a fair price to farmers for their milk. Other companies in the dairy business as well are not doing all they can and are only interested in maximizing their profits, dairymen say. They mention companies like Dean Foods, the largest distributor of milk and other foods in the nation, and Land O’Lakes, another large distributor of milk products.
According to figures released by the Federal Election Commission, these companies were among the top contributors to federal candidates’ election campaigns in both parties. Dean Foods donated $378,000 to both party candidates, DFA donated $164,900 and Land O’Lakes donated $113,050. The contributions did not come directly from the companies but from their political action committees. Dairy farmers are claiming that these companies have the ear of Congress members who are loath to pass legislation that will hurt the companies’ bottom lines.
River Reporter
Farms are closing at an alarming rate
By TOM KANE
REGION & NATION — Things couldn’t be much worse than the way the dairy farmers are rewarded or, more accurately, not rewarded, for the quality and quantity of the milk that America ’s dairy farms produce.
And it’s not because they haven’t been articulate about what is needed: a real connection between the dairy farmers’ cost of production and the price they get for their milk.
The federal government and the dairy cooperatives, called coops, have failed dairy farmers who have been falling by the wayside this year and for the last 10 years. Dairy farms have been disappearing at an alarming rate and nothing is being done to staunch the extinction.
Two senators from Pennsylvania , Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, are working hard to solve this. They have created legislation, called the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009 – S-1645, and farm organizations across the Northeast and farmers in other milk-producing states are getting local, state and federal elected officials to urge its passage.
“Support for these resolutions by local government officials highlights their understanding of the severe damage being inflicted on their communities by the on-going dairy farm economic crisis,” said Arden Tewksbury of the Progressive Agriculture Organization (Pro Ag).
Pro Ag, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, the American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association, Family Farm Defenders and many other farming organizations are supporting what is being called the Specter-Casey Bill.
One of the problems that passing such a bill will face is what is called the “global trade mentality” that is prevalent among legislators and business people. Under global trade agreements, it is easier to bring in products that can hurt American industries, in this instance, milk producers and distributors. “Without fair raw milk prices that can’t be undercut by the global trade movement, local dairy farmers will not survive,” Tewksbury said. “The once vibrant rural communities will continue to collapse and consumers will not have access to fresh, local milk and dairy products.”
Recently, New York State Senator John Bonacic urged dairy farmers to storm Albany in order to resolve the plight of New York dairy farmers. “Governor Patterson ignored my plea to use the Obama stimulus money to help solve the inequities that exist in New York State ,” he said. “If the legislators won’t come to you, then bring the message to them. Go to Albany in numbers and make them listen.”
Subsequent to Bonacic’s suggestion, dairy farmers traveled to Albany but had little effect on any action by the state.
Recently, the Congress passed a stop-gap measure with legislation that will pump $300 million into the dairy industry to relieve farmers. This one-time payment, as welcome as it is, will not change the convoluted process used by the feds and the dairy coops to set the price of milk, some of which date back to the Great Depression and even further.
Dairy farmers generally are disappointed with the coops that are not helping farmers get the best milk price. Many say that the coops, even though dairy farmers are on their boards, are in the business to maximize their profits, largely ignoring the plight of the dairy producers.
Local dairy farmer Brian Smith, who is also the chairman of the Wayne County Commissioners, won a seat on the board of the local Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) board—the regional coop—when he campaigned on the poor job the coops are doing for the dairy farmers.
One of Smith’s main concerns is that dairy farmers cannot compete on the world market because of the cheap milk products that are available in foreign markets. He says the coops promote the importing of milk products, despite what it is doing to the poor price dairy farmers are getting today.
“I dispute the word promote,” said Monica Massey, DFA vice president of corporate communications. “We have to operate in a global dairy environment. That’s the reality. There are no fences around our country. If we want to export milk products, and we do, then we need to be prepared to accept imports. It is our aim to minimize imports. We export 10 to one. We exported 1.2 million pounds of milk last year and imported one million pounds. We can not limit imports unreasonably. The World Trade Organization (WTO) says we have to do this.”
Dairy farmers say that the coops are not the only organizations that are dragging their feet on the issue of a fair price to farmers for their milk. Other companies in the dairy business as well are not doing all they can and are only interested in maximizing their profits, dairymen say. They mention companies like Dean Foods, the largest distributor of milk and other foods in the nation, and Land O’Lakes, another large distributor of milk products.
According to figures released by the Federal Election Commission, these companies were among the top contributors to federal candidates’ election campaigns in both parties. Dean Foods donated $378,000 to both party candidates, DFA donated $164,900 and Land O’Lakes donated $113,050. The contributions did not come directly from the companies but from their political action committees. Dairy farmers are claiming that these companies have the ear of Congress members who are loath to pass legislation that will hurt the companies’ bottom lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
