It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Wisconsin: No Right to Produce or Eat Food

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I know a lot of people don't trust this Alex Jones and I have to say I'm one of them. However, I do think he puts out bits of truth so he doesn't completely show his true colors. I will browse his websites occasionally to try and find those tidbits of truth. I came across this article:


In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are “wholly without merit.”



As if to show how (mad) he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that “no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…”


www.infowars.com...

Link to case file: www.thecompletepatient.com...

This is the site he got the original article from:

www.nonais.org...

Another link on the site to the story: www.thecompletepatient.com...

From there I went searching for a more sources:

www.activistpost.com...
www.thewatchtowers.com...

The were also blogs and other sites using the same story from the NoNONAIS website. I also Found the site for the FTCLDF.

Here: www.ftcldf.org...

I have tried to look up the original case but as I have no experience doing so, it is proving difficult. I'm looking more into this and I find anything more I will post it here.

Even if this does turn out to be a complete fabrication (I don't think it is), I believe it's only a matter of time before something like this does happen. They have already gone after small gardens (www.abovetopsecret.com...) livestock is next.




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Forgoten_Whisper
 


Here is a link to the full text of the Food Modernization Act........ From what I understand, you can not grow more food than your family can use in one year.

www.fda.gov...

And this will be enforced in all states within the next 18 months.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This, my friend, is some scary stuff. If what I am reading is true, somebody is tempting the waters, and seeing what they can, and cannot get away with.

It won't survive.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
That would be impossible to enforce, they can't even stop people from growing their own weed.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So this would cover me not being able to raise cows in a 39th floor hi-rise condo to drink their milk?

Zoning isn't constitutionally protected... this seems a little taken out of context.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


How do you know it is 18 months? I am about to call my local news and demand coverage of this. This is evil at it's maximum, who is to say that I cannot use fertile land to grow more food than I need to help somebody else, I assume I would need a license for helping others, right?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Thanks for the link, I even if it's not intentional, I think they're going to kill us all. Either that or we're all go to end up with weird defects and mutations.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanJP
 


Let me see if I can find the link for you..... This has been bothering me for quite some time, that's why I got the full text. I will post in a few minutes if I can find it


Here is one link:
www.fda.gov...
edit on 29-9-2011 by freespirit1 because: (no reason given)


message.snopes.com...
edit on 29-9-2011 by freespirit1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Lol, very true, but it is a good way to send someone to jail and seize there property if they're looking for something on you.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Forgoten_Whisper
 


True and I appriciate the post as it is good info.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Thank you...

This is insanity.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanJP
 


You are more than welcome.... I have been talking to people for months about this now, and its horrible. One farmer in my area who is almost a hundred years old just got "popped" and ordered to destroy his crops because he didn't get inspected and was selling them. The whole community stepped in and he was able to sell for this year at least, thank God!

Here is another link I found:
www.ronpaulforums.com...(D-Il)
edit on 29-9-2011 by freespirit1 because: add a link



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
"Land of the free?"



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
"Land of the free?"



Once upon a time there was a land of the free....... then it went bye bye.
The end.



Sorry, couldn't help it



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It is scary to see a judge try and regulate what citizen's can grow and eat. My Grandmother used to keep chickens and chop off their .s for dinner. No government should be stopping its' Citizen's from fending for themselves.




And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…


I do see one point by the judge. No you do not have the right to raise a rare breed of animal and then consume it.(I.E. a Jaguar, Hippo..etc.)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forgoten_Whisper
I have tried to look up the original case but as I have no experience doing so, it is proving difficult. I'm looking more into this and I find anything more I will post it here.

Maybe this will help.


I understand that some things are not fundamental rights, but the right to eat what we want to, if it doesn't break any laws, should be one of those. After all, it's a question of choice, like so many other things.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


This also goes to 'heirloom' (read NOT GMO) seeds. My retired neighbor gives away his bounty. His well loved and tended garden produces more than he and his wife can eat--so he gives us (neighbors) freshly picked produce. My sandwich I brought for my dinner at work contained both his lettuce and tomatoes.

Looking out the window now for the black helicopt.........



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


edit on 29-9-2011 by Glinda because: duplicate post--my blackberry hiccuped



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
You will eat your factory-produced oil burgers and you will like it!

What is it with you subversives and your rights to produce or eat your own food?
THE CORPORATION HAS SPOKEN.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

I understand that some things are not fundamental rights, but the right to eat what we want to, if it doesn't break any laws...


And therein lies the problem. Our governments keep modifying the existing laws, and adding new ones, tightening the nooses around our necks. Go down the lists: requiring pesticides, requiring artificial fertilizer, GMO seeds, forbidding fresh pure food availability (raw milk), hog tie-ing the organic food industry, allowing additives to our food with NO LABELING. It goes on and on.

If it is true that they are limiting the amount grown by a family to one year's supply, that is encroachment into a private citizen's affairs. They cannot call that hoarding, because it does not take product out of the general circulation. They should not be able to interfere in any way if the product is not given out for public sale.

However, it may be that they begin by limiting to one year, because a reasonable person may justify it in their own mind as being workable. But then down the road, what do you do when they say you can only supplement your family's one year food supply with home grown foods, because you cannot possibly provide proper healthy nutrition unless you are consuming product completely regulated by the government agencies? What then?

If you give an inch, they will try to take a mile.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join