It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Maryland D.O C. : Is This For A Background Check, Or 4th Amendment Violation?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

It does influence and or reference and reflect a commerce issue. But over all it is about the safety of people getting the end-product.

I am well aware of the pros and cons of raw milk. Did you really think I had not researched the subject???

Raw milk is a product whose safety CAN be assured by means other than pasteurization. The first is herd isolation and constant testing of the herd for diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. The second is a very high standard of cleanliness during milking, the third is the testing of the milk itself. If you wish to drink raw milk, as some do then you KNOW the seller and check his facilities and testing procedures. As you said TRUST no one.

Unfortunately this type of program would uncover a whole can of worms the USDA/FDA and more importantly the International Corporate Cartel wants buried very DEEP. It is for that same reason the USDA and the Bush Admin. squashed the attempts of Creekstone to do its own BSE testing for Mad Cow disease

Here is a bit about the BSE cover-up most people are unaware of and why the USDA/FDA want NO TESTING.

...Before the BSE crisis about 350,000 tons of MBM feed was sold in Britain a year, and relatively little was exported. After the ban the UK government did inform the EU, but there was a surge in exports to Europe. Then, as European states - informed of the danger - banned British feed, exporters opened up new markets, including North America, the Middle East and Asia.

Dr Stephen Dealler, a microbiologist and BSE expert, said: "It was a terrible mistake... Look at the controls they are now trying to apply to stop BSE in France and other EU countries. It is going to be much harder in African and Middle Eastern countries."

Evidence to the British BSE inquiry headed by Lord Phillips shows that British officials washed their hands of moral responsibility over the dangers of MBM spreading BSE to infection-free countries, the approach was to inform international bodies, leaving it to member states to decide whether to import UK feed and prevent it being fed to cattle.... Report: BSE contaminated feed exported for Eight years after UK ban

“There is a small chance that mad cow disease.. (BSE), is already in this country, according to a risk assessment released today by Harvard University. The risk assessment concluded that even if BSE had entered this country, it wouldn’t become a major public health problem, although human illnesses could occur”.Harvard Risk Assessment 12/3/2001

Quantitative assessment of the BSE risk from meat and bone meal in MBM export, pet food, etc. non-ruminant feed mill mixed feed mill non-ruminant:

After disease detectives in Great Britain determined that mad cow (BSE), was spread by feeding cattle infected meal, British officials banned the practice. But they didn't ban the export of feed, spreading BSE to continental Europe and Japan...At the height of the BSE epidemic, the UK exported 500,000 tons, including 168,000 metric tons of MBM (meat and bone meal) between 1990 and 1996. It also exported 3.2 million cattle to 36 countries. A Harvard study said that the exact amount sent to the U.S. was unknown, but it noted that at least 69 tons of "mammalian meal and flour" and 334 cattle were shipped here during the period.

Back to why the USDA/FDA does not want raw milk.

Here are some of the pros (notice the fight has been a very long one)

published in Magazine Digest - June 1938 Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal

Pasteurization's great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food — a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer's answer to the pasteurization zealots.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose — which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization's worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.

Here is the REASON the FDA has gone on the attack again.

Please read the whole thing cause it is really eye opening what has been done to the actual safety of our food.

“...While I believe a meaningful, uniform, universal ID system for all livestock with adequate tracking will evolve, as a state animal health official, I would be less than responsible if I did not encourage industry and government to move quickly to get a handle on our ability to traceback animals today for diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and others that present risks of exacerbation and the extreme costs associated with such...” Dr. Sam Holland, State Veterinarian, South Dakota from REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION - 2005

Why the sudden need to stampede the USA into a track back system?

This is an example of the USDA's response to one disease over the last decade. The chart shows how USDA cut back testing after WTO was created and the VP of Cargill wrote the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 1995.

Note the significant drop in Government testing!

Summary of Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle

Number of Cattle Tested........1995.....1996.....1997.......1998.......1999......2000.....2001
By Animal Health Officials...10,576...5,100 ....2,861 .....3,530.....1,425 ....1,967.....2,500
By Private Veterinarians ...15,921...17,100...19,930...18,189...22,863...19,930...19,587
Submissions at Slaughter..........39..........58 .........64...........39...........58..........64.........385

What about the danger of Bovine Tuberculosis in the USA since the passage of WTO and the lifting of tariffs and quarrantine mandated by WTO?

Bovine TB was confirmed in three dairy herds during 2002-2003.[California] ....Although the source of the infections was not confirmed, the investigations indicate TB was most likely imported in infected cattle....

“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005).

What was the USDA's response to "“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle"

in April 2001, the USDA’s Veterinary Services published an interim rule requiring Mexican feeder steers to originate from herds that had recently been tested for TB. The USDA then agreed to grant waivers to the whole-herd testing...

Texas imports a million cattle a year from Mexico. The cattle port-of-entry at Santa Teresa, NM is the largest entry.

Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms... at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers [Mexican] operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry...

SO what happened after the waivers of whole herd testing was granted"

For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002... Dr. Logan... said, the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. How ever, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin.

On May 1, 2007, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture reported a case of bovine tuberculosis (TB) discovered as a result of slaughter surveillance.... Subsequent testing of the index herd identified a TB- positive cow with a Colorado ID tag... The herd has been depopulated...Bovine TB was last reported in Oklahoma in 1982, and Oklahoma has been classified by the USDA as tuberculosis-free since 1984.

New Mexico
On June 14, 2007, the State of New Mexico confirmed that a dairy herd in Curry County was infected with bovine tuberculosis...Two infected herds were confirmed with TB in late 2002, .

Additionally, it is anticipated that both New Mexico and California will lose their TB “free” status in 2008, from AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN: FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2009-2013 BY TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION

What is the USDA/FDA position on testing by non-government (or non corporate cartel) entities???

The USDA is abandoning a known effective method of disease prevention, the first-point testing program, where the live cows in a herd are tested, in favor of a method that allows the disease more time to spread since the cows are at the end of their life before testing is done. Also Texas complains of the USDA shutting down disease testing labs by withdrawing funding. This is in line with the USDA's refusal to allow Creekstone to test 100% of their slaughtered cattle for BSE and Japan's response of increasing their cattle herds. See:

The Henshaws were not allowed to test their animals or to even SEE the government test results.

....The claim is that the USDA did this because of Pseudorabies, yet the government did not follow it’s own standard operating procedures of testing as outlined in the USDA’s own documents. The USDA spilled bodily fluids from the slaughtered pigs all over the road where any disease could be transmitted to other farms and other animals. Slaughter is not required for testing for Pseudorabies. These issues seriously puts into question the validity of the disease claim and/or the competence of the government officials involved....

The Faillice family had similar treatment from the USDA. When the standard test results were all negative and the animals had all been slaughtered, an experimental testing procedure was used and then the samples "lost" and "Destroyed" (sorry about no direct link you would have to read the book Mad Sheep)

There is a darn good reason to bury this report because it gives very good evidence that the USDA and FDA are intentionally allowing disease into this country and ALLOWING it to go unchecked by shutting down testing labs and NOT testing at farms.

Without the increase in food borne disease and the media's propaganda spreading fear, there would be not reason to implement the new "Food Safety" law passed in December. The new Law is specifically designed to wipe out independent farmers as similar laws have done in the European Union. The FDA has already stated it will "harmonize" with EU and other international laws per an agreement signed by Bush and the WTO AoA treaty.

Those treaties and the NEW Law are NOT designed to do a blasted thing about actual food safety. They are only there to help the International Cartels remove "barriers" to trade.... and the competition.

From the original before it was modified under the same date of course


The surveillance element or function is the most intensive of the six functions with respect to resources and personnel. Surveillance includes all activities designed and implemented to identify and locate any possible focus of infection or exposure to diseases of animal/poultry health significance in the livestock, poultry and exotic animal population. TAHC surveys animal populations for possible disease problems by collecting blood samples at livestock markets, on farms or ranches, and at slaughter plants.... Additionally, TAHC foreign animal disease diagnosticians investigate all reports of potential foreign animal diseases in order to achieve early diagnosis of a foreign animal disease, should it be introduced into the state.

USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas..... If this funding is not maintained, this lab will be closed and the out-of-state samples will not be processed by remaining TAHC laboratories....

The first-point testing program is the “early warning system” for the brucellosis program, enabling detection of infection prior to sale of cattle within the state. With the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis surveillance. There is a key difference between first-point testing and slaughter testing. An animal identified through first-point testing as possibly infected is alive. This allows the agency to collect additional samples (blood, milk and tissue) and conduct additional diagnostic serologic and culture tests to determine if the animal is in fact infected with Brucella abortus. An animal identified through slaughter testing as possibly infected is no longer living and therefore additional testing of that animal is not possible. As a result, the process to be followed requires the identification of the herd the animal came from and conducting a whole herd test to determine whether or not infection is present in the herd. The traceability back to the original owner or farm of origin is also much higher in a first-point test positive versus a slaughter positive, because the animals are individually identified with permanent identification devices, are identified to an owner at the time of testing and market records improve traceability of the animals. ...

..All states are expected to collaboratively participate in cooperative disease control and eradication programs or face significant animal movement restrictions from USDA and other states. Movement restrictions would significantly reduce the marketability of Texas animals and increase the cost of market access.

[NAFTA and WTO trade agreements impact]
...New national disease control programs, emergency management responsibilities, and trade agreements with foreign countries have a significant impact on TAHC. These new or expanded programs continue to stretch TAHC’s already stressed resources to their limits.

[foreign diseases  imported due to trade agreements  and  the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures]

...The responsibilities of TAHC have significantly increased as programs for disease control and surveillance have expanded, animal and premises identification systems have been initiated, and participation in emergency planning and response activities impacting animal health require more agency resources. Additionally, new disease challenges are emerging. Some are domestic diseases that are increasing in significance. Others are foreign diseases that may be imported as result of the exponential increases in international importations of animals and animal products. Our industries and our economy are threatened by diseases and pests that heretofore we only read about in disease text books or heard about in lectures....

Since 1999, there have been seven foreign animal diseases diagnosed within the United States (West Nile Virus, Exotic Newcastle Disease, High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Hemorrhagic Disease of Rabbits, Monkey Pox, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and Wildebeest Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an end in sight for outbreaks of foreign or domestic diseases and these diverse activities related to disease control and eradication....

As usual the situation is not nearly as cut and dried as the government and its propaganda arm, the Mass Media would paint it.

Analysis of the real problems with US food safety:

Peanut Quality - How did the Food Inspection Fail?:

Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA's HACCP food - Policy:

See John Munsell's comment in this article: "Who needs Al-Qaeda when you have got E. coli?" :

One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by timewalker
I wanted to make this public. This is what happened when I linked this thread in my blog.

Twitter never showed any followers - 0

I have no problem with following me, just show yourself.

hang on..

Here you go. Last entry to my thread.

edit on 23-2-2011 by timewalker because: (no reason given)

had to edit pic.

edit on 23-2-2011 by timewalker because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

All very fascinating.

The end result though is all of this is merely a smokescreen for Government abuses.

With Destron Fearing leading the way through selling the biochip.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormones, additives, and preservative make cancer.

Among other diseases.

Back on topic though.

While everything you've stated has been a great examination upon Constitutionality Rights, this needs to go back to the original topic, about the Maryland D.O.C., background checks, and the fields in between about the potential for a State organization, with Federal mandates demanding not only e-mail addresses but the passwords as well, the R.F.I.D. chip program is still on topic to an extent.

Because their mainstay sales tactics is "securing information access" which does tie into the topic.

Almost everything used towards making a demand and or higher demand for the R.F.I.D. chip process has to do with animal tracking, human tracking, and a direct as well indirect influence upon the Commerce of not only our nation but of the world.

And information is the commerce as well as money flowing through the chipping process.

The new commodity is not monetary value through transaction but through information access.

As well as making each and every one of us just another number.

Just another cog.

Pink Floyd : Welcome To The Machine

Sooner or later you're nothing but a part of the system to Government.

And just another pink and fleshy battery feeding the atrocious appetite of the Military Industrial Complex.

Welcome my friend, welcome to the machine, I hope your blood lubricates it.

Because mine will never do that.

I jump into the meat grinder and come out destroying it every time.
edit on 2/23/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

"The department's efforts to explore an applicant's behavior on social media networks stems not from a desire to invade personal privacy, but rather from a legitimate and serious concern with the infiltration of gangs into our prisons," Maynard wrote in his letter to Sara N. Love, president of the ACLU's Maryland chapter. "I am sure you would agree that permitting applicants who engage in illegal activities, or have gang affiliations, to be employed as correctional officers compromises the safety of all inmates and employees within our prison walls." Link - Baltimore Sun

Ok, so if the Dept. of Corrections has to check FB to find out whether an employee is gang affiliated, they have bigger problems then what first appears ... or, they are excusing the privacy infringement by couching it as a safety issue. Either case, it's outrageous behavior and kudos to the employee for standing up to it.

edit on 23-2-2011 by LadySkadi because: add the link

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

The problem with waiting too long to post a reply in one of your threads is that this only means more reading and research to do once I finally have the time to reply. Gee whiz Spartan!

Instead of replying to our brother Joe, I am replying to you instead because I would like to quibble with some language you have used in regards to rights.

Personally, I believe this violates many of those Officer's Constitutional Rights, in every way.

Later in a different post you make this statement:

And just how many people being arrested truly know their Constitutional Rights?

I have no doubt Spartan that you know your "Constitutional Rights", but even so, allow me to post this particular ""Constitutional Right":

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment, The Bill of Rights

It is a mistake to frame rights as "Constitutional" and most assuredly a mistake to scream for "civil rights" when all of us are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them is privacy. The right to privacy need not be enumerated in any Constitution in order for it to be a right.

As to our brother Joe's assertion that a person is "voluntarily" surrendering their rights when applying for a job, this may have some validity regarding private companies, and even then, it is questionable and if there are some rights that are surrender-able when applying for private employment, it is only some and certainly not all. I would argue, however that the right to free speech can and often times should be regulated in a private business, and even public agencies. I may think that all left wing radicals are dangerous politicos but the work place is not the proper place to espouse those views, and if my employer tells me to knock off the ranting on left wingers, he has that right to do so, even in light of the First Amendment, or any state Constitutional declaration of right.

However, the right to privacy is not a right subject to regulation in private business and certainly not in a government agency, of which the Maryaland Division of Corrections is. No one "voluntarily" surrenders their right to privacy in this context.

I guess that is all I have to say at this point. Carry on, and keep fighting the good fight, brother.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

The end result though is all of this is merely a smokescreen for Government abuses.

With Destron Fearing leading the way through selling the biochip.

....Almost everything used towards making a demand and or higher demand for the R.F.I.D. chip process has to do with animal tracking, human tracking, and a direct as well indirect influence upon the Commerce of not only our nation but of the world.

Oh very much so. That is why I brought up the governments attack on farming. Most people do not understand exactly how abusive the government can be. The government uses the "divide and conquer method" If the government can "justify" taking away the rights of one group (Farmers) then the line has been crossed and it becomes easier to expand the list of groups who are "less equal" than other groups until ALL the people have lost those rights.

Worse the government uses propaganda and disinformation to set one group at the throats of another so no one recognizes WHO the real enemy is. I have seen it in use over and over again.

An example of a gross misuse of government powers
The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. The original intent was to regulate the care and use of animals in the laboratory. The Act was amended six times (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007) The 1990 law added -Protection of Pets allowing the USDA to regulate ALL animals.

The fatal phrase was in the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.

Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘interstate instrumentality’’
and inserting ‘‘instrumentality of interstate commerce for
commercial speech’’;

Notice how well camouflaged this language is. I would never have guess it allows the USDA to regulate in-state petting farms until they showed up on everyone's door step.

...Opponents have countered that such measures would violate provisions in the U.S. Constitution that protect states’ rights, including the Commerce Clause, and that recognize private citizens’ right to travel... WIKILEAKS

What is the reality of these laws???

A petting farm licence holder can not leave their farm WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE USDA!!!

This is the direct result of the provision for "surprise visits" by the USDA. If you, not an employee or family member are not there they will fine you according to contributors of a yahoo group.

As Darol Dickerson stated:

NAIS will put Livestock owners under closer surveillance than terrorists, illegals aliens, drug dealers, and convicted sex offenders/child molesters. Currently, only convicted sex offenders/child molesters have to register their premises.

Farmers do not know it yet but they have just been added to the same ranks as petting farm owners. Close supervision by the USDA including "surprise visits" and tracking of their product.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in