Land of the free? Death by Regulation

I get way too much email. I received a copy of the following story back on April 29. It was first published on April 4th. Now that members of my family have begun to raise chickens in their yards, I have to confess this one hits a bit too close to home for me!

I will begin a very brief partial quote at the fourth paragraph:

The whole ordeal began only a few years ago, when [Andrew] Wordes [of Roswell, Georgia,] began to keep chickens in his backyard. His property was on 1 acre, but it was surrounded by secluded woods. He loved the birds, sold and gave away eggs to people and enjoyed showing kids the animals. He was also very good at this job, and being something of a free spirit, he chose to make something he loved his profession.

The city objected and came after him. In 2008, the zoning department issued a warning about the chickens on his property. This was odd because he was violating no ordinance at all; indeed, the code specifically approved chickens on properties of less than 2 acres. Even the mayor at the time objected to the department’s claim, but the department went ahead anyway. A year later, and with the assistance of former Gov. Roy Barnes, Wordes won in court!

But then look: The city council rewrote the law with no grandfather clause. It forbade more than six chickens on any lot, and specified that all chickens have to be in a permanent enclosure. He had tried to get approval for an enclosure, but because his house was on a flood plain, the city would not issue an approval. In the midst of this controversy, a flood did come to his house, and he had to use a Bobcat to move dirt around to save his house and his chickens.

Sure enough, the city then issued two citations for moving dirt without a permit and having illegal, unrestrained chickens. Then, the city refused to submit to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) his request for reconstruction funds after this storm (individuals on their own cannot get money of this sort). Next, the city contacted his mortgage holder, who was a friend and who had carried his mortgage for 16 years, and pressured her to sell the mortgage to stay out of legal trouble.

Do you get the sense from this that Mr. Wordes was being targeted? Absolutely. And he knew it, too. The Roswell Police Department pulled him over constantly and issued as many tickets as possible for whatever reason, tangling him in more difficulties. Police cars would wait in front of his house and follow him. And when he didn’t cough up enough money (he was nearly bankrupt after all this), they would book him and throw him in jail. This happened on several occasions. Meanwhile, the city itself filed several more suits against him.

It gets worse. The city planners came up with a “Roswell 2030 Plan” that posited a parks area exactly where his home was. Hearing of this, Wordes offered to sell his home to the city, but the city refused. They clearly planned to drive him out of it with this legal barrage. It didn’t matter that Wordes won every legal challenge or managed to get the suits thrown out in court — that only made the city angrier. Eventually, the city managed to a get probated sentence, setting up a tripwire that would eventually destroy his livelihood.

He posted on his Facebook account that he was going to be a attending a political event. While he was gone, his chickens were poisoned. Also poisoned were the baby turkeys, 10 of which were actually owned by the mayor, who was a friend. At this point, he had lost his means of support. While panicked about what to do, he missed a probation check-in. He was ordered to serve the remainder of his probated sentence in jail for 99 days.

While in jail, his home was ransacked and looted. Of course, the police did nothing. In fact, they probably approved it. Also while in jail, the new mortgage holder foreclosed on his home. His entire life was now in shambles. . . .

Read the title of this article. The story doesn't end prettily. And, sadly, I'm afraid it provides fodder for the comments Fabius Maximus makes about people's preferences concerning freedom and slavery. Are we really willing to fight for freedom? Or, are we more like Martin Niemoller in his famous observation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

I'm afraid Maximus is correct (for the very reasons to which Niemoller alludes):

A theme of the original Star Trek is that humanity was not meant for slavery; we always rise up and fight for freedom. That seemed plausible when I watched those shows as a child. Unfortunately, history shows that rebellions against internal elites are rare. Successful revolutions are still more so (even partial successes, such as France 1789). In fact subjects in well-managed societies (eg, tyrannies, oligarchies) wear the yoke comfortably.

More common is evolution in the other direction, our subject for today. The transition from citizen to subject is a bitter one.

"You'd better have your siding up to code or you're going to jail!"

Judicial over-reach? Police-state? The land of the free and the home of the brave?

Hey, it's only jail time, a strip-search, and breathalyzer tests for a month. What's the problem? How dare here not finish his siding? Who cares if he lacks funds?

From BrasscheckTV.com:

State to Investigate Jailing of Burnsville Man After Siding Violations

By Mark Saxenmeyer
ABC 5 Eyewitness News

The Burnsville man who ended up in jail because he didn't finish installing siding on his home is capturing national attention.

Many people are calling Mitch Faber the poster child for government waste and abuse. And now, a state Senate committee has asked him to testify.

Here's the background:

5 Eyewitness News first reported last week (March 17) that Faber was unable to complete the stucco and decorative rock project (siding) on his home after he ran into money troubles when the economy soured. The city of Burnsville sent him a series of warning letters to get his house up to code, ending with a citation. Faber says he was expecting some kind of fine for the violation. Instead, he was ordered to court.

Turns out, the city of Burnsville doesn't have the power to fine. It's up to a judge whether or not to issue monetary penalties, or to assign a different punishment.

The first judge who heard Faber's case, on December 15, 2010, was First Judicial District Court Judge Mary J. Theisen. She said she'd rather see him use his money to finish the siding--and ordered him to do so or face 30 days in jail.

"I left there thinking 'you've got to be kidding'," Faber said. "Jail time for siding?"

Several months later he was arrested on a warrant for failing to appear in court on June 1, 2011 to provide an update on the status of the siding.

In the court transcript from December 15, 2010, Judge Theisen is quoted as telling Faber "...you have to have the siding complete...by May 30, 2011...If so, the 30-day jail sentence will be vacated. If not, just turn yourself in on June 1st and you'll do your 30 days."

Faber contends that at the time of his arrest his siding was in compliance with the code, that he had met the judge's deadline, and therefore there was no need to turn himself in based on the judge's orders. "I did what she asked," he maintains.

After his arrest, Faber was jailed--without bond--for two days. A second judge, First Judicial District Court Judge Karen Asphaug then released him and sent him home to improve the siding one more time. Two weeks later, back in court again, Judge Asphaug heard from Burnsville Assistant City Attorney Samuel Edmunds. According to the court transcript from December 19, 2011, Edmunds told the judge, "Ever since June 1st it's been our position that he's (Faber) supposed to serve 30 days. However...we're pleased at this point that the work has been completed. So if the Court's not inclined to order him to serve the jail sentence, then we'd certainly ask the Court to order him to serve that (remaining) 28 days on electronic home monitoring."

Judge Asphaug agreed. Faver was required to wear an electonic monitoring bracelet at all times while on house arrest. He was also required to submit to random alcohol and drug testing, by blowing into another monitoring device, whenever an alarm went off in his home.

"They would call at all hours," Faber said. "Even at 2 in the morning. And then I would have like 30 seconds to go blow into the tube."

After 5 Eyewitness News' March 17th story aired, it was picked up by media around the country, and prompted many people (via blogs and message boards) to question the legal process that led to Faber's arrest, and his punishment.

According to Faber's wife Jean, "They are completely outraged. And our story, I think, is a personification of government out of control and sort of what's wrong nationwide."

The Fabers have since appeared on national news programs, and their situation has been decried and debated by political pundits and watchdogs. On Thursday, the Minnesota Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections, which is looking into local government abuse, contacted the Fabers to investigate their case. Much has changed in one week.

"We have felt so alone and so bullied and embarrassed," Jean said. "Some official could have stopped the train. But they didn't." The Fabers have now decided to first ask the city of Burnsville to reimburse them for their expenses related to their case. And if that goes nowhere, they're planning to sue.

"We want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone again," Mitch said.

City, county and state leaders involved in the Faber case again declined requests for on-camera interviews with 5 Eyewitness News but all still maintain they acted properly, and within the confines of the law.

RICO and now NDAA: Are you soon to become a domestic terrorist?

You know how RICO--the so-called Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was originally supposed to go after Mafia-style Big Crime organizations that do really nasty things . . . and then began to transmogrify for use against protest groups.

Mike Adams of Natural News points out that the recently-passed NDAA--National Defense Authorization Act about which I wrote a couple of times last month--is now ready for use against . . . you've got it . . . "domestic terrorist" groups like Food Not Bombs, whose purpose is to provide vegetarian buffet foods in public parks to feed the homeless, the hungry, and social protest movements like the Occupy protesters we have seen in the United States.

Adams makes an oblique reference to the famous statement by Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), the German theologian who spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps. After World War II, Niemöller said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Adams titled his article, And then they came for the food activists.

Hey: "I'm not one of them." I don't like crowds and I don't like mobs and, at best, I'm a "socialist" only in the sense that I believe in voluntarily doing good to or for those in need. But government-enforced "socialism"? No thanks!

So I'm definitely not "one of them." But I was raised to act according to the old maxim, usually misattributed to Voltaire, that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Here's what Adams writes based on multiple sources I have listed below this quote:

The FBI investigated a former Chicago Tribune journalist for handing out leaflets advocating animal rights. Will Potter was arrested by Chicago police and then released. Shortly after, the FBI knocked on his door. Will was threatened with being placed on the "domestic terrorist list."

More journalist than street activist, Will decided to dive into the rabbit hole of federal law enforcement suppressing environmental and animal rights activists. From that experience he wrote his book Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege. What Will discloses is disturbing.

Eco-terrorists, animal rights terrorists, and political prison

The war against terrorism already includes environmentalists and animal rights groups. Both groups occasionally engage in acts of vandalism, temporary occupation, and "illegally" releasing animals from lab experiment facilities.

But usually these activists conduct peaceful demonstrations and disseminate materials promoting their valid causes. If there is any vandalism, one could be charged for that and either fined or jailed according to the offense and the accused person's previous record.

But now, two secret prisons designed for domestic terrorists have sprung up in Indiana and Illinois. And environmental and animal rights activists have been considered domestic terrorists for years. These special domestic terrorist prisons are called Communication Management Units (CMUs).

Per prison documentation, CMUs are "self-contained" housing units for prisoners who "require increased monitoring of communication" in order to "protect the public." Current prisoners were transferred from minimal security prisons to CMUs without notice or due process.

The CMUs limit phone calls, visiting time, and mail much more than even maximum security prisons. Everything is monitored closely. Another Prison Bureau mission statement for CMUs is to keep people with "inspirational significance" from communicating with their groups or anyone in the media and public.

And now food activists are eligible for CMUs

This covers a wide spectrum of peaceful activists. Documents retrieved under the Freedom of Information Act (FIA) disclose the FBI's intent to infiltrate food activist groups and arrest food activists as domestic terrorists.

There have been raids on the Food Not Bombs activist groups. Their activity has involved creating vegetarian buffet food stands in public parks to feed the homeless, protest marches, and investigating and communicating corrupt global food distribution. That's a hot one!

Recently, public park feeding festivals were closed down forcefully. Members are often under surveillance. As early as 1989, military run classes in domestic training used the Food Not Bombs group as a case-study for one of "America's most hardcore terrorist groups".

Most of us know of other raids on raw milk distributors, family farms, private vegetable gardens and private food storage facilities. An outdoor vegetarian banquet held at someone's ranch was even disrupted by state health officials recently.

All of these cases of local law enforcement or food agency harassment eventually make their way into FBI files. But there's more -- the FBI has urged local authorities to harass and provide information. A Food Not Bombs site reports that private security agents from large corporations, like Monsanto, are also involved with food activist surveillance and monitoring.

The "War on Terror" is the cover for all this intimidation of citizens actively concerned about the future of food quality and food freedom. A compliant media and dumbed down population allows it.

Adams lists, as sources for his article,
Michael Kindt's Open Up and Say "Ahh", FoodNotBombs.net' America's Dirty Little Secret, Domestic Surveillance, Potter's What is the “Green Scare”?, and a two and a half-year-old article by Potter titled Secretive U.S. Prison Units Used to House Muslim, Animal Rights and Environmental Activists.

It disturbs me to think that more than a generation of Americans have been encouraged to read George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, but when the real Big Brother is upon us, we are, in general, as supine as the citizens of Orwell's country.

How sad!

Deficit? Forget the deficit! Don't you know there's a war going on? Right here in the United States.

Yep. Step right up to the gravy train. Your local police department needs more technological toys. Otherwise, how could they possibly do their job?

As this article demonstrates, the federal government is giving away military gear to local police forces if they will simply pay the shipping costs.

Now, the gear itself is often way overkill--both literally and figuratively speaking. But how can the adolescent-minded heads of police forces stop themselves? I mean, wouldn't you want a 3-foot-tall $70,000 robot and a $75,000 riverboat if you could get them for next to nothing? How much fun would it be just trying the things out? . . . Or how about an armored personnel carrier outfitted with a machine gun--yours for the cost of transportation in?

Of course, the cost of maintaining these toys might hurt your budget--as the city bureaucrats in Tupelo, Mississippi, discovered when the police helicopter they acquired cost them almost $274,000 in maintenance costs in five years. That price was particularly aggravating when they realized their local police force used the helicopter only 10 times per year on average. The approximately $5,480 average maintenance cost per mission (not including actual personnel, fuel, and so forth) seemed just a wee bit excessive.

But, hey. Who's going to look a gift horse in the mouth?

The real problem, however, is not financial. It is human. And it has something to do with freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at

the many incidents of SWAT teams, which have become outright paramilitary forces, [injuring] or even [slaughtering] totally innocent people.

Take, for instance, earlier this year when a grandfather of 12, who was not even suspected of any wrongdoing, was “accidentally” murdered by a SWAT team member in Framingham, Massachusetts.

He was described by neighbors as the “nicest guy in the world,” and the search warrant was not even targeted at the man, named Eurie Stamps, Sr.

Another example that comes to mind is Jose Guerena, father and ex-U.S. Marine, who was literally liquefied by a SWAT team that was carrying out a wholly unconstitutional search warrant on his home that was not directed at any particular person, made no mention of his home, and instead was targeted at anyone who happened to be inside the residence.

The Cato Institute has compiled a fantastic interactive map showing the disturbing amount of botched paramilitary police and SWAT team raids across the United States which you can find here.

From the few thousand raids per year in the 1980s, the number of raids conducted by SWAT teams has made a staggering rise to 50,000 per year in the 2000s, and with each raid there is the real possibility of innocent people being slaughtered for no reason at all.

Do we truly still live in the Land of the Free?

Sounds "a little bitter"

Is it possible this article is a hoax? If not, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, sounds like maybe he's gone off his rocker. He claims that, "Except for 9/11 itself, . . . there have been no terror attacks on the US." And even with respect to 9/11, he speaks of "the government’s improbable conspiracy theory explanation." (!!! --Quite a string of words, there! And does he really believe it? Maybe! As the next sentence shows.)

"Indeed," he goes on to say, "an investigative program at the University of California discovered that the domestic 'terror plots' hyped in the media were plotted by FBI agents." (!!!) --Roberts--assuming this article was written by Roberts, a man who has received the highest security clearances in the United States--links to an article published in a Russian-sponsored website to document these claims.

That sounds fishy. But the Russian website links to a Mother Jones article, The Informants.

I encourage you to read both articles, but the Mother Jones article first, since it is the primary source for the Russian article.

Before I become side-tracked on a Mother Jones article, however, I want to quote Paul Craig Roberts. I merely want to say that it seems wildly improbable that a responsible and well-informed person like Roberts would say the kinds of things he does!

But maybe not.

After all, he did write The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

I'll let you be the judge, however. Is he off his rocker?

Here is the conclusion to the much longer article he wrote titled, Is the War on Terror a Hoax?

I am a former staff associate of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. I required high security clearances as I had access to information pertaining to all US weapons programs. As chief economist of the House Budget Committee I had information pertaining to the US military and security budgets. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I was provided every morning with the CIA’s briefing of the President as well as with endless security information.

When I left the Treasury, President Reagan appointed me to a super-secret committee to investigate the CIA’s assessment of Soviet capability. Afterwards I was a consultant to the Pentagon. I had every kind of security clearance.

Despite my record of highest security clearances and US government confidence in me including confirmation by the US Senate in a presidential appointment, the airline police cannot tell me from a terrorist.

If I were into model airplanes or attending antiwar demonstrations, little doubt I, too, would be arrested.

After my public service in the last quarter of the 20th century, I experienced during the first decade of the 21st century all of America’s achievements, despite their blemishes, being erased. In their place was erected a monstrous desire for hegemony and highly concentrated wealth. Most of my friends and my fellow citizens in general are incapable of recognizing America’s transformation into a warmonger police state that has the worst income distribution of any developed country.

It is extraordinary that so many Americans, citizens of the world’s only superpower, actually believe that they are threatened by Muslim peoples who have no unity, no navy, no air force, no nuclear weapons, no missiles capable of reaching across the oceans. . . .

With the “terrorist threat” and Al Qaeda deflated with President Obama’s alleged assassination of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was left unprotected and unarmed by his “worldwide terrorist organization,” Washington has come up with a new bogeyman – the Haqqanis.

John Glaser reports that, according to anonymous CIA officials, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen “exaggerated” the case against the Haqqani insurgent group when he claimed, setting up a US invasion of Pakistan, that the Haqqanis were an operating arm of the Pakistan government’s secret service, the ISI. Adm. Mullen is now running from his “exaggeration,” an euphemism for a lie. His aid Captain John Kirby said that Mullen’s “accusations were designed to influence the Pakistanis to crack down on the Haqqani Network.” In other words, the Pakistanis should kill more of their own people to save the Americans the trouble.

If you don’t know what the Haqqani Network is, don’t be surprised. You never heard of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. The US government creates whatever new bogeymen and incidents are necessary to further the neoconservative agenda of world hegemony and higher profits for the armaments industry.

For ten years, the “superpower” American population has sat there, being terrified by the government’s lies. While Americans sit in fear of nonexistent “terrorists” sucking their thumbs, millions of people in six countries have had their lives destroyed. As far as any evidence exists, the vast majority of Americans are unperturbed by the wanton murder of others in countries that they are incapable of locating on maps.

The scariest thing, here? He's sounding like that political pariah named Ron Paul.

Or maybe not. The more I'm seeing, the more I'm thinking Paul really is about to become the "flavor of the decade."



And, finally, a few more comments about that Mother Jones article I mention above. I read the article and began to think Martin Stolar, a lawyer the authors quote who represented a man caught in a 2004 FBI sting operation in New York City, may be right. Maybe the 15,000 paid FBI informants today (up from 1500 in 1975--during the violent anti-Vietnam War protest era!) really are seeking to justify their salaries by "creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror."

The Mother Jones authors note that, "In the FBI's defense, supporters argue that the bureau will only pursue a case when the target clearly is willing to participate in violent action."

But after reading the article, I began to think, "Yeah. They pursue 'cases where the target is willing to participate in violent action' kind of the way child molesters target weak and socially disconnected children so as to find willing participants in their crimes."

The fact that child molesters are able to seduce children into going along with the abusers' crimes doesn't make the children guilty of crimes, nor does their "willingness" make their molesters less guilty.

I encourage you to see whether my analogy is correct. Read the transcript of what I'd like to call the seduction of Narseal Batiste to engage in a terror plot.

As James J. Wedick, a former FBI agent, comments,

These guys [the alleged terrorists] couldn't find their way down the end of the street. They were homeless types. And, yes, we did show a picture where somebody was taking the oath to Al Qaeda. So what? They didn't care. They only cared about the money. When we put forth a case like that to suggest to the American public that we're protecting them, we're not protecting them. The agents back in the bullpen, they know it's not true.

Read the Mother Jones article to see whether the analogy I am suggesting is valid.

Are the kinds of behaviors the FBI informants engage in what American citizens want to pay multi-billions of dollars each year for via the FBI? And is it to catch terrorists like these that we are willing to find ourselves, more and more, surrounded by a ubiquitous police state?

Like father, like son: Rand Paul calls Senate’s bluff, kills terrorist detainee amendment

From The Hill's Floor Action Blog:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky. [son of Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul--JAH]) on Thursday — simply by asking for a recorded vote — managed to kill an amendment that would have "clarified" that the military can indefinitely detain enemy combatants.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), called the amendment to the floor, explaining it ought to garner the support of all senators because it would simply “clarify” that enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat. [???!!! Let me get this right: acquitted of crimes in court, but still to be held in detention. --Now, I understand that (literally) guilty parties can be acquitted in a court of law. And I understand how an enemy combatant (a true combatant) will remain a threat whether he (or she) can be found guilty of a specific criminal act or not. But then shouldn't the court case be about whether the person really is a combatant and not about some crime? --I'm probably demonstrating some kind of naivete, here. But, really. --What is the base for this proposed legislation? --JAH]

Looking to spare vulnerable Democrats from an awkward vote on the controversial issue of extra-judicial military detention, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), with the assent of his Republican counterpart John McCain (R-Ariz.), attempted to swiftly pass the amendment by unanimous consent.

“I think that this can be accepted on voice vote,” Levin said, when Sessions finished presenting the amendment. “I have great problems with it, but I think there is probably a majority here that will favor it.” [???!!! "I have great problems with [the legislation" but "I think this can be accepted on voice vote"? --Is this the height of hypocrisy, or what? --JAH]

But from across the chamber, Paul demanded a recorded vote on the amendment [Thank you, Paul! --JAH], which resulted in a resounding 41-59 defeat.

“I am going to ask for the yays and nays,” Paul said, surprising leaders.

Both McCain and Levin, who indicated moments before that they would agree to passage of the measure by unanimous consent, voted against it in that roll-call vote.

Campaign for Liberty's Matt Hawes commented,

[T]he amendment they tried to sneak through with a voice vote was one that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens – even if they were tried and found not guilty – until Congress declared an end to the war on terror.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture how furious the Founders would be that any American, especially one who has been found innocent of the charges, could be held indefinitely by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution. . . .

[T]his fight isn't over, and there's still other language in the [National Defense Authorization] Act to allow for indefinite detention that must be removed.

U.S. government against U.S. citizens

I received the following email from Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com (see US Constitution repealed by traitorous Senators, Senate bill 1867 would allow U.S. military to detain and murder anti-government protesters in American cities for further coverage):

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill [the National Defense Authorization Act] that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America [see Sections 1031 and 1032--JAH].

This bill, passed late [Wednesday] night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

It's being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn't apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill it essentially says it can apply to Americans "if we want it to."

Even WIRED magazine was outraged at this bill, reporting:

...the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

The passage of this law is nothing less than an outright declaration of WAR against the American People by the military-connected power elite. If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime, the torture of Americans and even the "legitimate assassination" of U.S. citizens on right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of the police state we've been warning you about, I hope you realize we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you have no rights whatsoever in America -- no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent, nothing.

Read my red alert warning on this urgent development at:
www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB_1867_war_on_terror.html

... and watch this urgent interview with Alex Jones of InfoWars.com at:
www.infowars.com/stewart-rhodes-crossroads-ndaa-bill-is-pure-treason/

The mainstream media is engaged in a shameful and conspiratorial news blackout of this entire issue:
www.businessinsider.com/the-medias-blackout-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-shameful-2011-12

... and even the ACLU is outraged about this potential law:
[Mike points you to this post; I think Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window does a better job of summarizing what this is all about--JAH]

Are you getting all this? Do you realize America is about to be overrun by our own military?

He sounds shrill. But maybe there is good reason for it. Read the links.

Simon Black wrote in last month's Sovereign Man: Confidential:

[I]f you want to know what’s going to happen, pick up any number of books that detail the decline of empire.

I suggest William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as it is probably the most well-documented account ever recorded. It becomes painfully obvious throughout the book that Germans and Jews alike should have picked up and left Germany in the late 1920s or early 1930s. The warning signs were all there, and reading the book is like watching characters in a bad horror movie walk right into the killer’s trap.

Are we reading such a script right now in this, our beloved "Land of the Free" and "Home of the Brave"?

Perhaps I should restate that. Are we merely going to read such a script? Or will we--will you--do something about it? At least write to your senators and congressperson?

Or will this (see below) be coming soon to a town near you?

Land of the free? --Food freedom

Here's a story you should probably be aware of.

Beware: Your freedoms are being taken away.

This story has to do with food, food preparation, and government overreach.

I first heard about this from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

Farm-to-Fork Dinner Fiasco
By Laura Bledsoe | October 24, 2011

What an evening we had this last Friday night! It had all the makings of a really great novel: drama, suspense, anticipation, crisis, heroic efforts, villains and victors, resolution and a happy ending.

The evening was everything I had dreamed and hoped it would be. The weather was perfect, the farm was filled with friends and guests roaming around talking about organic, sustainable farming practices. Our young interns were teaching and sharing their passion for farming and their role in it. (A high hope for our future!) The pig didn’t get loose.

Our guests were excited to spend an evening together. The food was prepared exquisitely. The long dinner table, under the direction of dear friends, was absolutely stunningly beautiful. The music was superb. The stars were bright and life was really good.

And then, …

for a few moments, it felt like the rug was pulled out from underneath us and my wonderful world came crashing down. As guests were mingling, finishing tours of the farm, and while the first course of the meal was being prepared and ready to be sent out, a Southern Nevada Health District employee came for an inspection.

Because this was a gathering of people invited to our farm for dinner, I had no idea that the Health Department would become involved. I received a phone call from them two days before the event informing me that because this was a “public event” (I would like to know what is the definition of “public” and “private”) we would be required to apply for a “special use permit”.

If we did not do so immediately, we would be charged a ridiculous fine.

Stunned, we immediately complied.

We were in the middle of our harvest day . . . but Monte immediately left to comply with the demand and filled out the required paper work and paid for the fee. (Did I mention that we live in Overton, nowhere near a Health Department office?) Paper work now in order, he was informed that we would not actually be given the permit until an inspector came to check it all out.

She came literally while our guests were arriving!

In order to overcome any trouble with the Health Department of cooking on the premises, most of the food was prepared in a certified kitchen in Las Vegas; and to further remove any doubt, we rented a certified kitchen trailer to be here on the farm for the preparation of the meals. The inspector, Mary Oaks, clearly not the one in charge of the inspection as she was constantly on the phone with her superior Susan somebody who was calling all the shots from who knows where.

Susan deemed our food unfit for consumption and demanded that we call off the event because:

1. Some of the prepared food packages did not have labels on them. (The code actually allows for this if it is to be consumed within 72 hours.)
    
2. Some of the meat was not USDA certified. (Did I mention that this was a farm to fork meal?)
    
3. Some of the food that was prepared in advance was not up to temperature at the time of inspection. (It was being prepared to be brought to proper temperature for serving when the inspection occurred.)
    
4. Even the vegetables prepared in advance had to be thrown out because they were cut and were then considered a “bio-hazard”.
    
5. We did not have receipts for our food. (Reminder! This food came from farms not from the supermarket! I have talked with several chefs who have said that in all their years cooking they have never been asked for receipts.)

At this time Monte, trying to reason with Susan to find a possible solution for the problem, suggested turning this event from a “public” event to a “private” event by allowing the guests to become part of our farm club, thus eliminating any jurisdiction or responsibility on their part. This idea infuriated Susan and threatened that if we did not comply the police would be called and personally escort our guests off the property.

This is not the vision of the evening we had in mind! So regretfully, again we complied.

The only way to keep our guests on the property was to destroy the food.

I can’t tell you how sick to my stomach I was watching that first dish of Mint Lamb Meatballs hit the bottom of the unsanitized trash can.

Here we were with guests who had paid in advance and had come from long distances away anticipating a wonderful dining experience, waiting for dinner while we were behind the kitchen curtain throwing it away! I know of the hours and labor that went into the preparation of that food.

We asked the inspector if we could save the food for a private family event that we were having the next day. (A personal family choice to use our own food.) We were denied and she was insulted that we would even consider endangering our families health. I assured her that I had complete faith and trust in Giovanni our chef and the food that was prepared, (obviously, or I wouldn’t be wanting to serve it to our guests).

I then asked if we couldn’t feed the food to our “public guests” or even to our private family, then at least let us feed it to our pigs. (I think it should be a criminal action to waste any resource of the land. Being dedicated to our organic farm, we are forever looking for good inputs into our compost and soil and good food that can be fed to our animals. The animals and compost pile always get our left over garden surplus and food. We truly are trying to be as sustainable as possible.)

Again, a call to Susan and another negative response.

Okay, so let me get this right.

So the food that was raised here on our farm and selected and gathered from familiar local sources, cooked and prepared with skill and love was even unfit to feed to my pigs!?!

Who gave them the right to tell me what I feed my animals?

Not only were we denied the use of the food for any purpose, [but] to ensure that it truly was unfit for feed of any kind we were again threatened with police action if we did not only throw the food in the trash, but then to add insult to injury, we were ordered to pour bleach on it.

Now the food is also unfit for compost as I would be negligent to allow any little critters to nibble on it while it was composting and ingest that bleach resulting in a horrible death. Literally hundreds of pounds of food was good for nothing but adding to our ever increasing land fill! . . .

If you've been involved in any of the modern freedom fights, you know the Bledsoes made several mistakes when they meekly acquiesced to the demands and interpretations of the health department.

When the health department called and said their event was "public," Laura was correct to wonder, and she should have asked; no, she should have demanded for the legal chapter-and-verse reference for the definition. Laura and her husband should not have "immediately complied."

But then, having complied, when the inspector came and began telling them what they could and could not feed their guests: whence the craven asking the inspector if they could save the food for a private family event that we were having the next day? And after the negative response to that supplication, why the craven request to be permitted to feed the food to their pigs?

The emotional direction of Laura's internalized question was correct: "Who gave them the right to tell me what I feed my animals?" The problem is, the answer implicates her: She and her husband gave the health department and this unseen woman named Susan and Susan's visible agent Mary . . . --She and her husband gave them the right when they abjectly bowed to and did what these people demanded.



*******
Happily, the story doesn't end there.

Somehow, as the last of the food was being destroyed, Laura's husband remembered that they had joined the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and they "even" had FTCLDF's emergency phone number on their refrigerator.

"We became members of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund several years ago as a protection for us, but mostly to add support to other farmers battling against the oppressive legal actions taken against the small farmers trying to produce good wholesome food without government intrusion," Laura writes. "The local, sustainable food battle is being waged all across America! [But] not one battle has been brought on because of any illness to the patrons of these farms! The battles are started by government officials swooping down on farms and farmers like SWAT teams confiscating not only the wholesome food items produced but even their farm equipment! Some of them actually wearing HAZMAT suits as if they were walking into a nuclear meltdown! I have personally listened to some of their heart wrenching stories and have continued to follow them through the FTCLDF’s updates."

Well, I made the call, told my story and within a short period of time received a phone call back from the FTCLDF’s General Counsel, Gary Cox.

When told the story, he simply suggested that we apply our fundamental constitutional right to be protected against “unlawful search and seizure.”

I simply had to ask Mary two questions. “Do you have a search warrant?” “Do you have an arrest warrant?”

With the answers being “No”, I politely and very simply asked her to leave our property. As simple as that! She had no alternative, no higher power, no choice whatsoever but to now comply with my desire.

She left in a huff making a scene shouting that she was calling the police.

She left no paperwork, no Cease and Desist order, no record of any kind that implicated us for one thing, (we had complied to all their orders) only empty threats and a couple of trash cans full of defiled food.

Laura tells the story of what happened after the inspector left--including the police visit, the chef's hard work to make a new meal from scratch, and many other worthwhile details. If you like "the rest of the story" kinds of stories, I encourage you to read the rest of the story.

Laura Bledsoe concludes her article with the following comments:

I can’t tell you the number of times I have felt the hand of providence helping us in the work of this farm.

As hard and demanding as this work is, I KNOW that this is what we are meant to do.

I KNOW that it is imperative that we stand up for our food choices.

I KNOW that local, organic, sustainable food produced by ourselves or by small family, local farms is indispensible to the health and well-being of our families and our communities now and in the future! If this work were not so vitally important, the “evil forces” would not be working so hard to pull it down. . . .

We were victorious, we will be victorious, we must be! Our grandchildren’s future is at stake! . . .

I feel that we have been compelled to truly become active participants in the ongoing battle over our food choices. This is just one small incident that brings to our awareness how fragile our freedoms are. We are now ready to join the fight!

We would encourage all of you who can to contribute and to become a member of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. They are not only fighting for the farmers, they are fighting for the consumers to have the right to choose. You can find them at farmtoconsumer.org.

As I close, I am reminded of the passage written so forcefully by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

The same battle continues. I pray the result of the battle will be the same, that we have been “endowed by our Creator with . . . life and liberty.” . . .

Monte and Laura Bledsoe
Written from Quail Hollow Farm
October 24, 2011
quailhollowfarmcsa.com

*******
Sadly (probably in keeping with their apparently normally compliant personalities), neither the Bledsoes nor anyone else on the farm that evening shot more than the briefest few seconds of the inspector's activities.

You can see them in the first 16 seconds of this video. (Sorry I couldn't put the video directly on this page. Every time I did, it wanted to begin playing immediately.)

There's interesting commentary after the first 16 seconds. The chef's response from 1:20 to 1:45 absolutely blows me away. How did he ever control his emotions so well? I think I would be throwing things. I find the last 30 seconds or so, too, particularly poignant: "It makes you wonder: Who owns America?"

The chef makes about a 4-minute speech in this segment. Again, imagine the outrage you might feel if you were a professional chef being told to throw away thousands of dollars of your work. Here he responds with grace even as he outlines the specific--and crazy--charges the health agent laid against the food he had been preparing AND as he contemplates cooking an entire new meal from scratch for 100 guests in 45 minutes. . . .

Ready to do something about the future of your food rights in America?

• Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
   
• Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance