Wednesday January 22, 2025
| ||||||||||||||||||
SNc Channels: HomeNews by DateSportsVideo ReportsWeatherBusiness NewsMilitary NewsRoad ReportCannabis NewsCommentsADVERTISEStaffCompany StoreCONTACT USRSS Subscribe Search About Salem-News.com
Salem-News.com is an Independent Online Newsgroup in the United States, setting the standard for the future of News. Publisher: Bonnie King CONTACT: Newsroom@Salem-news.com Advertising: Adsales@Salem-news.com ~Truth~ ~Justice~ ~Peace~ TJP |
Dec-15-2011 12:35TweetFollow @OregonNews Animal Diseases: Time to Expose Really Dangerous Corporate LiesBenjamin Deerborn for Salem-News.comThe diseases scares are lies with tremendous consequences for farmers, for food, for animal diversity, for control of and harm to populations through vaccines.
(PHILADELPHIA) - The Food Modernization and Safety Act empowers DoD and Department of Homeland Security to mass slaughter animals here in the event of an animal disease outbreak. No need for the disease to be dangerous, or even exist. A declaration by the CDC is enough for military to roll out and begin killing. This is the same CDC that lied about H1N1 and is now asking churches to give the H1N1 vaccines hidden in the seasonal flu vaccine. Korean farmers had a taste of what it means for military to protect them from an animal disease. Their government (or the WHO?) declared an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in cattle and hogs and called out 70,000 military who killed millions animals, burying the hogs alive. One can hear their screams of terror here and see the military operations, Hazmat suits and all, here. Multinational meat packers just knocked the stuffing out of livestock farmers in Korea. Using terror. But it is a terror they created because FMD is 100% harmless to humans and mild in animals. Remember WMDs - the lie used to get the US into a war? Now it is time to focus on a new type of lie, disease lies, because they are being used for many corporate purposes, to eliminate farmers and increase their global control over food, and diseases offer corporations a direct chute into their inserting patented GE-animals, something the USDA has been funding for them for some time. Using the CDC to generate fear of animals, and a militarized food safety law to wipe them out, the corporations have arranged a means to get rid of millions of normal animals so they can sell patented GE-animals (mimicking Monsanto's removal of normal seeds along with insertion of GE-seeds). Those patents would give corporations ownership of animals, just as they have taken control of seeds of life. The only way to stop the corporate plans for military mass slaughter of our animals is to cut the legs out from under their bogus disease fears. But that means everyone rethinking their own buying into their scares. In this Huffington Post article, one can see how false fear is communicated about FMD.
Contagious, yes, harmful, no.
Huffington Post fails to say the disease is no threat but all that killing is a gift to corporations like the Brazilian company, JBS, the largest (and vertically integrated) cattle operation in the world. There is on-going active FMD in Brazil but there is no "outbreak" declared and no fear campaign used to mass slaughter them. No, the meat from those animals will bring in a higher profit nowa now that poor Korea has a shortage now. FMD can get rid of pigs, goats and cattle, but how does on get rid poultry for the sake of Tysons and other multinationals? Declare an outbreak of avian flu - another scam, and using maximal terror of a pandemic that could wipe out millions of people. Avian flu is directly connected to Bush and Rumsfeld.
Avian flu is another a huge agribusiness animal disease lie - a hoax. The swine flu is an animal disease whose terror was predicated on fear that had already been ramped up around an avian flu. pandemic.
Continuing from the interview with Dr. Lanka:
The USDA right now is pushing for Animal Disease Traceability regulations. They would destroy independent livestock owners in the US. The rules are entirely different for agribusiness, which would, in fact, control the data on the farmers. The public, including progressives, after being exposed to many years of corporate media terror stories around animal diseases and urgent Presidential warnings, have accepted that animal diseases threaten everyone, not yet having realized they are as useful and can be as false as WMDs. Even if ADT could track diseases (it can't), it will never be applied to the Big Packers who have prevented traceback of contaminated meat to their filthy operations, and just as with JBS, it is controlling this entire corporate/USDA plan designed for increased profit and global control. The diseases scares are lies with tremendous consequences for farmers, for food, for animal diversity, for control of and harm to populations through vaccines. And the more harm, the more profit to the companies promoting the fear - "Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others" - which themselves have a history of political control and wanton death. Burying millions of hogs alive and creating false flag animal disease outbreaks are all part of a day's work to maximize profit by every means possible, for their biggest investment of all is in disease. The following response to the USDA/APHIS in their push for ADT (with Vilsack breaking a specific promise to cattlemen around animal ID and branding) makes stunning clear that the legal footing of the USDA is false and concocted. Very much like the disease scares that are now set through the FMSA, to open the door to GE-animals and corporate ownership of all food animals. December 8, 2011 RE: APHIS - 2009-0091 To Whom it may concern: This posting[by APHIS to the federal register about Animal Disease Traceability] is an attempt to achieve increased compliance with international protocols by restricting the liberty of domestic producers. The proposal lacks clear, definitive legislative authority and is presumed to be enforceable under the Animal Health Protection Act. This proposed application can offer no preventative value as the revolving doors of international commerce are insufficiently monitored and regulated to afford real protection to the individual livestock producers within this nation. Thus, increased domestic regulatory burdens are without preventive merit. Although ostensibly predicated upon Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, a paradox appears in recognition of the existence of State boundaries (as the line in the sand to forward the requirements), while at the same time positing the fiction that, by executive order, State sovereignty is voided. The contractual obligation set forth in the application for cooperative agreements with the states also posits an Executive Order requiring notification of the State executive regarding said application and yet by merely checking a "NO" box that requirement is voided. Would not we individuals as tenants to State sovereignty also be afforded the same choice if the presidential Executive Orders had authority beyond the heads of their respective agencies? USDA seeks to charge the monetary cost of the proposal against the entire value of livestock in the nation. The cost to individual producers is far greater tan any fictional benefit achieved by international compliance, as export agents will realize the return value of the compliance labor input, not the complying producers who would bear the costs, both labor and investment. The claim of a public benefit would require a public expense, holding the producers harmless. Alleged individual benefits are not sufficient to cover the individual losses proposed in this posting: lost income required in the labor of tagging and record keeping; loss of Liberty in composite data derived from producer property being sotred insecurely by organization already indemnified from false entires or loss of data to outside parties. All of these acts would be done without regard of due process as defined within the law of the land. The loss of property, value and liberty in the examples given would certainly quality as 5th amendment "takings." History shows that the USDA has failed for over 60 years to make good on compensating statutory takings as required in 7 U.S.C. & 602, and that this breach of statute raises the questions to jurisdictional authority granted therein, rendering the entire posting ultra vires. The following nice questions are posed specifically to the issue of the hot iron brand. Please provide a response on a point by point basis. Any question, concern or statement made in this posting not responded to, will be deemed admitted. 1. Do you agree that the use of the hot iron brand as a means of livestock identification is a long standing custom? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 2. Common law maxim: "Actori incumbit onus probandi [The burden of proof is on him who makes the claim]." Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 3. Administrative Law requires proof of claim, 5 U.S.C & 556(d) Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence' record of basis of decision. "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof." Does this Administrative Law apply to claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 4. Common Llaw maxim: "Consuetudo ex communis assuetudo vincit legum non scriptam, si sit specialis; et interpretatur legem scriptam. [A custom, grounded on a certain and reasonable cause, supersedes the common law.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 5. Common law maxim: "Consuetudo loci observanda est. [The custom of a place is to be observed.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 6. Common law maxim: "Consuetudo manerii et loci observanda est. [A custom of a manor and place is to be observed.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 7. Common law maxim: "Consuetudo neque injuria oriri neque tolli protest. [Custom can neither arise from nor be taken away by injury.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 8. Common law maxim of "Consuetudo praescripta et legitima vincit legem. [A prescriptive and lawful custom overcomes the law.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. 9. Common law maxim: "Optima est legis interpres consuetude. [Custom is the best interpreter of the Law.]" Does this maxim apply to the claims made in the Federal Register Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091? Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise. This document is submitted by: Randy Cook, Michigan, Paul & Carol Griepentrog, Wisconsin, Randy Yarbrough, Colorado, Derald Hefner, North Carolina, Daryl & Cheryl Wdein, Wisconsin, Wendel Lutz, Illinios, L.J. McCray, Oklahoma, et al., interested parties.
Articles for December 14, 2011 | Articles for December 15, 2011 | Articles for December 16, 2011 | Support Salem-News.com: googlec507860f6901db00.html | ||||||||||||||||
Contact: adsales@salem-news.com | Copyright © 2025 Salem-News.com | news tips & press releases: newsroom@salem-news.com.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |
All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.
[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.