It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They should just make it illegal for American companies to send jobs out of the country
To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, retire public debt and reduce the cost of public investment, and for other public purposes.
If You'd like here any other of my ideas just ask and I'll explain
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If You'd like here any other of my ideas just ask and I'll explain
*hand up* Since no one will address my points, which I consider to be core, I'll ask you, for fun if nothing more.
3. We fight. We increase tariffs on imports and lower taxes to small businesses....with no exemptions except for food and energy.....
..John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.
At this point, some important facts about the manner in which the Dollarhites conducted their operation are worth reviewing:
The business was carefully conducted on the property of their Missouri home;
The business complied with all applicable state laws;
The bunnies were kept in large, clean and well-maintained cages; and
Not a single bunny was sold across state lines.
....a USDA office in the nation’s capitol. He called the new number, and the lady he reached there was blunt, John said.
‘Well, Mr. Dollarhite, I’ve got the report on my desk, and I’m just gonna tell you that, once I review it, it’s our intent to prosecute you to the maximum that we can’ and that ‘we will make an example out of you.”SOURCE
...I remember for years my brother chose not to see the light of day, and it was his very employer who should him. He worked for the EPA in oil field site inspections. Consistently he was tasked with fining, and shutting down mom, and pop outfits, but consistently was ordered to leave the big boys like Exxon Mobil alone.... www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
What is the best path to take?
What you are asking for is a utopia.
Humanity as a whole lacks the GOOD morals and ethics to achieve it.
Our way of thinking prohibits a society that provides and maintains a happy healthly life , with equal rights for all.
We lack sympathy and compassion to care for our old, sick, handicaped, hungry,homeless and orphaned.
We believe that for a PRICE , it can be achieved. With this belief , who will pay for it? There will be winners and losers and the losers will be pushed to the side and left behind. Sooner or later we all will be left behind while the rest continue their search for shangrala.
....Grow your own crops to eat, and sell locally. Convert biomass into fuel, and sell/use that as well. Get the hell off the grid. Be a 21st century trend setter! .....
..... I have read every document, press release and all the Federal Register documents that USDA has issued with regard to NAIS. I even attended, at my own expense, NIAA's ID Expo in 2006 to learn firsthand about the program. It was there that Dr. John Weimers told me personally that he would drive every back road to find every backyard flock and tag each chicken. It was also there that Indiana's State Vet Dr. Jennifer Greiner said to me she couldn't sleep at night thinking I would be eating diseased meat, that being my own sheep.... www.naisstinks.com...
FDA's Response to FTCLDF Suit
* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]
* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]
* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]
* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]
FAS serves as the repository and manager of the USDA Satellite Imagery Archive. Access is available to USDA subscribers only. The USDA Imagery Archive is the repository for all acquired USDA satellite imagery. The Archive was established in 2001 as a cost-sharing agreement among the various subscribers.... www.pecad.fas.usda.gov...
... Combining RFID and GPS systems will allow TransCore to offer fleet, rail/intermodal and shipper customers a complete supply chain visibility ... www.businesswire.com...
...The USDA and the various state agencies tasked with implementing the program will focus on the largest food producers first, Spaulding said. But eventually, other animal owners may be ID’d and their animals tracked.” “Spaulding said ‘misinformation’ about the national program is circulating throughout the country,” and that “false information she (Bishop) has heard include the idea that each premise will be photographed from space to search for unidentified animals and people will be jailed if they don’t comply”. This statement was made as the USDA and partner WSDA was actively engaging in satellite surveillance using Terra Server. The information given was relayed to her by a NASS statistician who was very proud of the surveillance operation.
The very Terra Server utilized by the USDA website claims, “it is great for: commercial farmers, family farms, and ranchers. Satellite imagery provides the agriculture business with a means to monitor land from above. We update aerial imagery as soon as we receive it to ensure that you have the most up to date. Higher resolution imagery also allows you to see crop rows and can sometimes even allow you to see individual trees in tree farms and orchards. The imagery available from TerraServer will allow you to have a visual representation of your land that is only available from the sky.” In fact, on January 12, 2006 headlines splashed across the world that, “Satellite Images Used to Detect Crop Insurance Fraud” were used to hold a man accountable...
Since 2005 our food supply has become increasingly and obviously, even to a casual observer, very contaminated. Secret government contracts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act foretold a day when the food supply would become unsafe and the unwary public would ‘demand’ regulatory programs such as NAIS. As predicted, food contamination escalated and continues unchecked. The plea for safe and local foods resonates within the hearts of average Americans who have no clue as to the battle going on.....
Okay, well you can continue to paint this false picture for members on ATS, but I'm not a chump and am not buying into your extreme views that just don't reflect reality.....
WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
317 U.S. 111
WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
Decided Nov. 9, 1942.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee filed his complaint against the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, three members of the County Agricultural Conservation Committee for Montgomery County, Ohio, and a member of the State Agricultural Conservation Committee for Ohio. He sought to enjoin enforcement against himself of the marketing penalty imposed by the amendment of May 26, 1941, to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, upon that part of his 1941 wheat crop which was available for marketing in excess of the marketing quota established for his farm. He also sought a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Act as amended and applicable to him were unconstitutional because not sustainable under the Commerce Clause....
The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated....
It is urged that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, 8, clause 3, Congress does not possess the power it has in this instance sought to exercise. The question would merit little consideration since our decision in United States v. Darby, sustaining the federal power to regulate production of goods for commerce except for the fact that this Act extends federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm...
Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.
...Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.... law2.umkc.edu...
....Held, that, in any event, and even assuming that the penalties referred to in the speech were those prescribed by the Act, the validity of the vote was not thereby affected. P. 117.
2. The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1941, when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. P. 118.
3. The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs. P. 127.
4. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. P. 127.
5. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. P. 128.
6. A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market. P. 128.
7. The amendatory Act of May 26, 1941, which increased the penalty upon "farm marketing excess" and included in that category wheat which previously had not been subject to penalty, held not invalid as retroactive legislation repugnant to the Fifth Amendment when applied to wheat planted and growing before it was enacted, but harvested and threshed thereafter. P. 131.
I'm doing it whether you like it or not.
TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION 2009 – 2013 AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN
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....