Since I happen to have the research that shows how these %$#@ TRAITORS give away our Constitutional rights, I thought I would post this illustration
since it gives a very good picture of the underhanded sneakiness of these illegitimate sons of syphilitic She-camels.
The first of this crap is now hitting the Federal Register now. We have about 60 days to flood the Federal Register with comments in hope of killing
the new regulation like we did when they tried to get it "approved" last time. SEE THREAD for details:
Saga of Global Governance of the Food Supply à la Kissinger
Clinton and Congress ratified the GATT trade agreement in the winter of 1994. This formed a new international trade body, the World Trade Organization
(WTO). WTO had stronger authority of enforcement (a secret tribunal) and covered a wide range of trade such as agriculture and intellectual property
During the ratification debate of the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S.
Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement past
Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by the Administration pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United
States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:
The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the
Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay
Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States
shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including
any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or
to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of
This is how the traitors in the Clinton Administration got the Trojan Horse Treaty ratified.
Once passed the USDA leaped into action.
....the USDA decided to move to the HACCP system of inspection. Based on the idea that the plant operator knows the plant better than the USDA,
the responsibility for designing an inspection system was turned over to each individual plant.
.... USDA “officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90’s, the agency made the following enticing promises:
* “Under HACCP, the agency will implement a ‘Hands Off’ role in meat inspection.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority.
* “Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans.”
As a result, the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into
play. The plant would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible
for the implementation of the plan.
As a result, the inspector was no longer responsible for what was happening on the plant floor: that was left to company personnel. The new
role of the inspector was to make sure that plant personnel were carrying out their duties in a manner consistent with the HACCP plan. In many cases
this amounted to making sure that all of the paper work was in the proper order....” www.agpolicy.org...
In addition Government testing labs were closed and disease surveillance was cut back to near useless levels.
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
As any sane person would expect the incidence of Food Borne Disease increased. (It more than doubled) and the USDA embarked on a campaign to
SHIELD THE GIANTS
In addition thanks to the WTO policy
of open borders, no quarantine and no testing, Mexican Cattle with Tuberculosis crossed the border and California, New Mexico and Texas have lost
their hard won "Disease Free Status"
Meanwhile the FDA had the balls to publish this on their website in 2008 despite the fact "the URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under
“The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by
CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national
interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent,
harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in
considerable economic repercussions...”
Despite not one but two Congressional investigations (where the bureaucrats lied through their teeth) Congress decided that FARMERS not HACCP was the
obvious cause of the increase in food born disease and therefore HACCP must be applied to farms as well as food processing plants. In addition the
new Law just passed in 2010 gives the World Trade Organization complete control of all regulations governing the US Food Supply.
The "Food Safety Modernization Act" just being passed in December 2010 g0es in effect 2012.
The new law includes the following section:
SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
The World Trade Organization and the United Nations (OIE and FAO) are well prepared to take control. Here is the "Official" information about what
is in store for us in the not too distant future. Useful for convincing family or friends that you really are not crazy.
Links: FDA website:
- Full Text of the Law
See the left side bar for information like www.fda.gov...
- (Frequently Asked Questions)
(Notice how the actual law references not only the World Trade Organization but Good Agricultural Practices by NAME!!!!)
These are from United Nations FAO and OIE (Good Farming/Agriculture Practices)
FAO GAPs (fruits and veggies)
OIE Good Farming Practices: Livestock
GUIDE TO GOOD FARMING PRACTICES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD .
Good Dairy Farming Practice
“What are Good Agricultural Practices?
...A multiplicity of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) codes, standards and regulations have been developed in recent years by the food industry and
producers organizations but also governments and NGOs, aiming to codify agricultural practices at farm level for a range of commodities....”
www.fao.org... [has links]
Short Report of what the S.O.B.s are up to: OIE WORKING
GROUP ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD SAFETY Report to the 77th General Session of the OIE International Committee - Paris, 24–29 May 2009
This gives the FDA's Views on Freedom
...the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted its response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal
Defense Fund (FTCLDF)....
Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in
* "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]