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.

 

MONSANTO Bill S510/HR2751 BANS Homegrown FOOD Makes Private, Backyard Fruit, Veggie Gardens ILLEGAL!

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
People do not have to listen to these "laws"; legality does not mean lawful. The US is a corporation first and foremost and cannot force a million or so people to do anything if they unite and flood the street if need be. The power lies in the people and once people realize this the false government will have no choice but to bend to their will.

The government does not represent your best interests. Even though some members of the government are voted in, that does not mean that they will represent the people they were meant to represent. In higher offices like senate seats and the presidency, voting is in many cases a sham.

The government is a self serving entity and especially in cases like these they are downright criminal and traitorous. Doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat the quicker people realize the quicker their power will get checked.

edit on 6-4-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Lol, we'll see how illegal it is when they put an end to the gardening in my backyard. I'm not buying this nonsense until it actually does come true.



That's the kind of response people were giving when the healthcare mandate was being discussed - then it passed


Maybe the supreme court will strike that one down ... maybe.

-----------

In feudal society the serfs that worked the land were not allowed to cultivate their own food. Since the feudal model is what we are returning to I'd say it was just a matter of time. You know its all done through incrementalism.

Once a freedom slips away it doesn't come back. Powers gained by the government don't just recede by themselves one day. When its gone ... its gone.


Well, to be fair, Obama's health care plan isn't really an attack on your freedoms but that's an entirely different debate, isn't it



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Now, it's not as easy as getting your information fed to you from a youtube video, but here's the actual text in question:

www.govtrack.us...

Who can highlight the portions they are concerned with and give a detailed explanation of why?

Good day.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
I will simply grow hydroponically in my basement. Already am designing my system. The government and the monsanto toadies can kiss my grass.

Will raise fish and vegetables. Fish fertilize the vegetables and the veggies clean the fish water. Nice closed system. Been running my tropical fish tanks like this for decades. Thought I would expand a bit. Could even breed some tropicals and make some money at the local pet shops.


And how exactly will you get light in this 'closed system'? How is your power being produced? Burning Coal to power hydroponic lights is not a 'closed loop'.

Good day.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Maybe if they made a law that stated that the content of a bill had to be simple enough for a layman to understand it would be understood by the senators that vote on it. All that legal mumble Jumble does is make things complicated. There are more loophole possibilities in bills written like this than one put in simple terms with a simple explanation following it as to why the bill was created and what it is trying to accomplish. This would make future interpretation by the legal system easy and make it impossible for a person to say he wasn't aware. This kind of stuff is created to help lawyers make a living.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Now, it's not as easy as getting your information fed to you from a youtube video, but here's the actual text in question:

www.govtrack.us...

Who can highlight the portions they are concerned with and give a detailed explanation of why?

Good day.



Clearly its the first line:

www.govtrack.us...


Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2751) entitled ‘An Act to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles




And whats MISSING:




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Maybe if they made a law that stated that the content of a bill had to be simple enough for a layman to understand it would be understood by the senators that vote on it. All that legal mumble Jumble does is make things complicated. There are more loophole possibilities in bills written like this than one put in simple terms with a simple explanation following it as to why the bill was created and what it is trying to accomplish. This would make future interpretation by the legal system easy and make it impossible for a person to say he wasn't aware. This kind of stuff is created to help lawyers make a living.


For sake of clarity, is your argument that the wildly distorted and misrepresented information presented in the OP's youtube video is justified because of the 'layman's' ignorance?

Because my point is that after READING the actual text in question I come to starkly different conclusions than the pundit in the video. Basically, everything in the text of HR 2751 has to do with basic FDA regulation of the food industry. This is nothing new, and is only a strengthening of these laws which have existed for years. Please, feel free to point me to pasrts of the text that would contradict this, as I am more than open to being shown I am missing something.

But if your entire argument is based not on YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS based on YOUR OWN RESEARCH, but on the immediate and unquestioning acceptance of a youtube video's interpretationof the info, well, then, you might want to examine how much of your assessment is factual.

Good day.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
It's already illegal to have certain plants. The Government has told us what we can and can't grow. I'm sure if The Government wanted to expand this list, it would. I would think The Government would be overstepping its boundries if it told us what plants we were allowed to have, but obviously others disagree with me.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


Anyone who would Deny Gods Gift of our Daily Bread to his Creations should be Denounced as Pure Evil . Monsanto Fits the Bill here IMO..........



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

I don't think the bill has anything to do with people growing their own food at all, I'm just wondering why these bills are written the way they are. I've seen comments from senators that said they couldn't possibly read some of these bills, especially when they get up to 125 or more pages long. The writers of these bills always stick something in them that is hidden so people they are representing gain from it. Over complicating something is usually a way of hiding something from view. That's a ploy of Bureaucracy that's been around for a long time, something I have personal experience seeing.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Windows work really well to admit light. And I have some. Sun is free. Could also hookup some solar powered floresents with grow bulbs. There's lots of easy ways to light if you do a little research.

Or are you just looking for a fight? Then look elseware.
edit on 4/7/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

I don't think the bill has anything to do with people growing their own food at all, I'm just wondering why these bills are written the way they are. I've seen comments from senators that said they couldn't possibly read some of these bills, especially when they get up to 125 or more pages long. The writers of these bills always stick something in them that is hidden so people they are representing gain from it. Over complicating something is usually a way of hiding something from view. That's a ploy of Bureaucracy that's been around for a long time, something I have personal experience seeing.


Well, how does tat relate to the actual information being discussed here? Read the bill and tell me which specific parts you are confused by. But relying on third-party pundits like in the OP's youtube video to interpret raw data for you is just perpetuating a lack of understanding.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Windows work really well to admit light. And I have some. Sun is free. Could also hookup some solar powered floresents with grow bulbs. There's lots of easy ways to light if you do a little research.


Actually, you said your basement, and basements don't generally let in enough light to grow tomatoes. Also, you said you would use your basement because you wanted to avoid detection. Big windows with enough exposure would not be very hidden, would they?

Also, solar powered grow bulbs would be fraught with problems in terms of long-term agricultural applications. I'm kind of guessing you really havent a clue of what you talk about.


Or are you just looking for a fight? Then look elseware.
edit on 4/7/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)


A fight? No, sir. I was just looking to inform you of some of the basics of agriculture, and challenge your claims to see if you had a glimmer of knowledge on the subject. But you don't.

Good day!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Not these threads again? This was thoroughly debunked here on ATS back in 2010.
Aside from that, here is the snopes entry on the debunking of your claim"

www.snopes.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The claims in the video are not supported by the available facts.

Would this not merit a skunk works?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


This bill is extremely simple for me to understand. I am not worried about my understanding it, I am worrying about others. Can't you understand what I was saying? I thought I said it the second time so anyone could understand my concerns about complicating things to hide deceit. This bill is straightforward although if I took it apart I could probably find loopholes. If I compared it to other laws which allow corporations to create smaller corporations under it's control they could bypass this law and the law wouldn't apply. Give me a few hours and I could find many ways to bypass it.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Give me a few hours and I could find many ways to bypass it.


I'm willing to give you a few days.

Please, prove your claim.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
When it comes down to it and the last question is asked.
What is more important, your fellow man or your job?
Your greed or humanity?
The law or what is right? Especially if that law is a contradiction to what is moral and true intrinsic value?
These people at MONSANTO may have already bitten off more than they can chew...
Their mutant pesticides are not working anymore and we are creating super bugs that will eat up our food much more easily. Do not mess with mother nature and things you cannot control...



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   


umm hasn't it dawned on yall that this huge bill is about "Food Safety" but does not even address non-labelling of genetically altered species meant for Consumption!?

that in itself, along with the senate vs the hr versions, should be a flag for like i said, reading between the lines. i guess monsanto as-lickers are too busy discrediting any and all videoS hosted by YT or pretending small/organic farmers and home/heirloom growers are NOT an endangered species on monsanto's hitlist.

and the hr-passed laws aren't going to dare verbatim spell it out as starkly as the senate law-makers proposed why would they propose what they proposed and WHO WAS BEHIND IT? lol, sheoples, sheesh!

our worst food supply nightmare come true - monsanto has infiltrated legislative, judicial, & executive united states incorporated and now IS usda IS fda IS the supreme court, is USA, the corporate Monopoly conglomerate at large.

this bill, as it reads, is a warning to all private farmers, gardeners they will be hunted down and are LIABLE and will be SUED and FINED in COURT for alleged breach of any and all of the existings 'acts' reiterated - in the name of FOOD SAFETY.

... the IRONY - of passing food 'safety' bills while systematically 'poisoning' off both indie farmers & the whole food supply.



"Apparently AMERICANS like being poisoned."




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Infi8nity
 
HR 2751 is law as seen here www.govtrack.us... so yea give your food or to sell your farm food your ok form the link

(H) FARM SALES TO CONSUMERS- The Secretary shall not require a farm to maintain any distribution records under this subsection with respect to a sale of a food described in subparagraph (I) (including a sale of a food that is produced and packaged on such farm), if such sale is made by the farm directly to a consumer.

(I) SALE OF A FOOD- A sale of a food described in this subparagraph is a sale of a food in which--

(i) the food is produced on a farm; and

(ii) the sale is made by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or grocery store.
as far as s510, it is dead been sense Nov30 2010 www.govtrack.us... but then what good is this if said farm sold food is the source of some type of food poising?


edit on 7-4-2012 by bekod because: added info. and word edit. added link



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join