Archive for the ‘Food Freedom’ Category

In Trump’s desire to cute regulations and maintain consumer well being, he stated that he wants to cut 75% or more of regulations. Today, he signed an EO that will likely achieve that. For every regulation they want to put in, they must remove two previous regulations. This is a brilliant way to slow the train of regulatory strangleholds on citizens trying to make products and perform labor.

Your thoughts are welcome!

Trump signs executive order to block new government regulations

Trump signs executive order to block new government regulations
President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order mandating that for each new government regulation being enacted, two need to be revoked.

The order is in line with the new president’s plan to slash regulations by as much as 75 percent, as Trump believes the expanding body of government rules is stifling the US economy.

“We’re cutting regulations massively for small business – and for large business,” Trump said, signing the document. “This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen.”

The White House sets aside a budget for regulations each year. Monday’s measure specifies the 2017 regulations budget as $0.

A temporary regulations freeze was put into place on Trump’s first day in office. The new executive action establishes the process for when the freeze expires.

“There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be a normalized control,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday morning, as he signed the order.

The Obama administration was known for regulatory zeal, expanding the Federal Register to 81,640 pages in 2016 and setting a record for the greatest number of regulations issued in a single day with 527 pages on November 17, 2016.

Monday’s executive order is the sixth since Trump took the oath of office on January 20. He also signed ten presidential memoranda, including the one dated January 24 that instructed federal agencies to streamline the permit process and ease the regulatory burdens on small business.

If you’ve been raising cattle for any length of time, you know how the Check Off issue is loaded with corruption and seeming misappropriation of funds. Everyone gets to pay the Check Off and very few benefit from the additional collection of funds. Well Missouri wants to add an increased check off tax for just Missouri. Please read the following from Missouri Rural Crisis Center and then download this pdf form and register so your voice is counted in the discussion.
STOP the New Missouri Beef Checkoff Tax
In order to Vote NO on this corporate money grab—
Cattle Producers Must Register before March 4th
Thank you for signing the petition opposing a new state beef checkoff tax. Now is the time to register with the Missouri Department of Agriculture to be eligible to vote—see registration forms enclosed.
The Missouri Department of Agriculture is holding a referendum to add a new beef checkoff tax. If passed, all cattle sold in Missouri will be assessed an additional $1 a head checkoff with the proceeds going to the Missouri Beef Industry Council (MBIC). And, the only way to stop it is for Missouri cattle producers to register to vote before March 4th (registration forms are enclosed). If you have registered by March 4th, the Missouri Department of Agriculture will send you a ballot on April 4th.
We are in a cattle market crisis right now with feeder calves having lost up to 45% of their value between September and December (according to the Livestock Marketing Association) with no foreseeable end in sight. What is the response by the MBIC? They want us to give them $2 million more every year. They want a 200% raise? We should say no to this money grab.
Please fill out the enclosed registration form and reach out to other producers in your area that oppose the checkoff. Note: you will be asked to provide three years of cattle sales on this form—We must not let this rule deter us from registering and voting to stop this checkoff.
According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, anyone who has a shared interest in your cattle sales—including your spouse, son, daughter or business partner—can register to vote in this referendum. Each person can fill out separate registration forms and list the number of cattle sales that represent each person’s share in the business. For example, a husband and wife who marketed 50 head of cattle could each register and report 25 head of cattle marketed.
Here are ways you can register:
 We’ve included registration forms—fill them out and send them to the Missouri Department of Agriculture c/o Missouri Beef Referendum, P.O. Box 630, Jefferson City, MO 65102; or
 Go to and register online or print a form; or
 Call the Missouri Department of Ag at (573) 751-5633 and ask to have a registration form mailed to you; or
 Pick up a registration form at your county FSA office.
If you need additional registration forms or have any questions:
 Call the Missouri Rural Crisis Center at (573) 449-1336.
 We can email, mail or fax you a registration form(s).
All Registration Forms Must Be Postmarked by March 4th.
Paid for by the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Roger Allison, Executive Director, 1108 Rangeline Street, Columbia, MO 65201
Here are some key facts about why we oppose the state beef checkoff:
 There are no rules that this checkoff slush fund will be used to promote Missouri beef. The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association successfully lobbied to remove the “promote Missouri beef” language from the bill. And, our federal checkoff dollars are already being used to promote foreign beef in U.S. markets.
 There is no sunset clause on this beef checkoff. Once these programs are put into place, they are virtually impossible to get rid of. So, as cattle prices continue to decline, producers will still be paying the extra $2 million+ every year.
 The vast majority of current federal checkoff dollars end up in the coffers of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) that consistently supports policies favoring corporate meatpackers (even foreign-owned meatpackers) at the expense of Missouri’s independent cattle producers. The NCBA successfully lobbied to end Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and supports corporate packer ownership of livestock which drives down producer farm-gate prices.
 The Missouri Beef Industry Council ignored its own hand-picked “Missouri Beef Checkoff Taskforce” that voted to request a $.50 per head state checkoff instead of $1 on August 26th. Instead, the MBIC requested $1/head anyway—another clear example of the no accountability attitude of the Missouri Beef Industry Council.
 Supporters claim that there will be some way to get a refund after the fact, so they try to call this a “voluntary” program. In reality, cattle producers are forced to pay into this program by having the money taken out of their cattle sales checks before they even get them. If the fee is not paid when due, a penalty shall apply and the attorney general can sue cattle producers for the collection of checkoff fees and penalties. It doesn’t get any more mandatory than that. A complicated, time-consuming refund process does not eliminate this mandate to pay.
 This new checkoff would mean the state government would be collecting another $2.2 million from Missouri beef producers every year and giving our money to the Missouri Beef Industry Council (MBIC), an unaccountable private entity that says it has “no obligation to disclose documents” about how our money is spent.
 The only way to stop this new checkoff tax is for independent cattle producers to say “NO”, otherwise starting in July, we will be paying over $4 million every year in beef checkoff fees.
Please register to vote today—
your vote could make the difference.

Below is an article focusing on the GMO aspects of the European WTO Trade Act with the US. Not surprisingly, various nations are having the will of the people subverted through these “trade agreements”. I cannot state it any more plainly than this…The WTO Trade Agreements ARE global government and they have received FULL approval for legal enforcement in all commercial agriculture via our federal level congress with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Here is the article:

TTIP Food Rules Secretly Enforced in EU; Agenda 21-Style Sustainability in New Draft

Two recent stories published in Europe reveal that leaders of countries participating in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are secretly enforcing the agreement’s provisions and approving backroom deals with powerful multinational corporations whose interests are served by the secret arrangements. What’s worse: It seems that Agenda 21 is lurking in the latest version of the agreement.

On October 17, The Guardian reported:

EU negotiators will resume controversial trade talks with the US on Monday amid claims that multinational companies have jumped the gun in advance of any agreement to import goods that are currently banned — including genetically modified crops and chemically washed beef — into European markets.

A campaign group says that a report in a US journal concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks show that Europe is already capitulating to huge pressure from the US to allow imports of previously banned goods before an agreement is reached.

Just one day later, the blog Common Dreams reported on a similar acceleration of the TTIP standards in advance of the agreement’s approval by lawmakers in Europe and the United States, asserting that despite significant pressure among Europeans to slow or scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade pact, American negotiators are pressuring their continental counterparts to play ball or else:

US officials successfully used the prospect of TTIP to bully the EU into abandoning plans to ban 31 dangerous pesticides with ingredients that have been shown to cause cancer and infertility.

A similar fate befell regulations around the treatment of beef with lactic acid. This was  banned in Europe because of fears that the procedure was being used to conceal unhygienic practices. The ban was repealed by MEPs in the European Parliamentary Environment Public Health and Food Safety Committee after EU Commission officials openly suggested TTIP negotiations would be threatened if the ban wasn’t lifted.

It’s not hard to see why the U.S. trade representatives would be anxious to get the EU diplomats back to the TTIP table.

As this reporter noted in June, the vote on a crucial package of TTIP amendments was delayed after successful efforts by opponents to stall the massive surrender of sovereignty wrapped in a trade deal.

A statement published that day by the U.K. Independent Party (UKIP) shed light on the real reason for the parliamentary push-back:

Today Nigel Farage, MEP and leader of UKIP, said:

“In my 17 years as an MEP I’ve never received so much communication from the public on a proposed piece of legislation. The TTIP has concerned millions of people across the European Union. They have bombarded their MEPs with phone calls, letters and emails and in response to this the EU is now running scared. They’ve got the wind up, particularly the left, who have been supporting TTIP from the start and finally have been exposed as backing large scale global corporatism.

The parliament suspended today not just the vote, but equally the debate on this issue which I think was cowardly in the extreme. It is interesting to note that for the first time ever actions in the European Parliament are now being heavily debated in Washington, too. Perhaps we need a redefinition of what a free trade deal is.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s prediction that Brits will “rue the day” is right, though not if the TTIP is defeated, but if it is ratified. There is so much wrong with this deal, and The New American is the foremost source of information on the many crimes agains the U.S. Constitution lurking in this leviathan.

There is no doubt among constitutionalists in America and friends of liberty and economic freedom on both sides of the Atlantic that the TTIP is not to any right-thinking person’s liking.

In an article on June 5, The New American laid out a detailed constitutional justification for rejecting the TTIP, the TPA, and their equally evil cousin, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP):

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposes to begin “deep and comprehensive” integration between the 28 member states of the European Union and the United States. Over the course of the past several years, we have published many articles detailing the dangers posed by these (still officially secret) agreements.

We are bringing together here, in abbreviated form, 10 of those reasons why every American — whether identifying as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Tea Party, liberal, conservative, or constitutionalist — should oppose both of these proposals.

Of course, were this deal a good deal for the United States, the U.K., or the rest of Europe, its advocates would be shouting its benefits from the rooftops. In fact, however, the agreement is being negotiated in secret and trade representatives of the various partners act assiduously to keep the details under deep cover.

That should be enough to give pause even to those predisposed to otherwise favor such globalist goings-on.

If readers are not yet wary enough to join the fight against the TTIP, the fact that the cornerstone of the globalist insider regime — the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — is pushing the pact, should be just enough to get them involved in the battle for freedom. As The New American noted:

The CFR fully supports the trans-oceanic political and economic “integration” and “convergence” plans of the TPP and TTIP. It works closely with the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN), which says its mission is “to promote and assist the convergence of EU/US Government policies.” The TPN’s 1995 “Partnership Project” called for combining NATO with a merged EU-U.S. “in a single political framework by early in the next century.” In its 2008 report Completing the Transatlantic Market, the TPN went further, revealing that “the process of creating a Transatlantic Market will be an integral step in the evolution toward an eventual Transatlantic Partnership Agreement embracing the economic, political, and strategic totality of the EU-US relationship.” “Totality” — did you catch that?

On October 23, the 11th round of TTIP negotiations concluded in Miami, and it looks like the “bullying” tactics of the United States have successfully convinced EU trade ministers to cave to the American demands. The Guardian reports:

The EU appears to have broken a promise to reinforce environmental protections in a leaked draft negotiating text submitted in the latest round of TTIP talks in Miami.

In January, the bloc promised to safeguard green laws, defend international standards and protect the EU’s right to set high levels of environmental protection, in a haggle with the US over terms for a free trade deal.

But a confidential text seen by the Guardian and filed in the sustainable development chapter of negotiations earlier this week contains only vaguely phrased and non-binding commitments to environmental safeguards.

Sustainable development. Constitutionalists and proponents of individual property rights will instantly recognize that ominous term as the goal of the United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21.

The TTIP, then, seems not only an attempt to cede legislative authority to big business and move steadily and stealthily toward U.S.-EU political integration, but it may actually be the Trojan Horse within which Agenda 21 is made the law in the United States, enforced on citizens as part and parcel of this latest globalist trade agreement. In fact, in this case as in so many others, the Obama administration and its corporate shot callers may have found a way to make an end run around the Constitution, the Congress, and the will of the American people.

Below is an excellent post from a site called “The Daily Herb”

My kudos to the author as she nails the clear motive straightly and clearly with the very words of those doing the disservice to us.

Here’s the in depth article by Sara Hall, compliments of “The Daily Herb”:

Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana

Rural cleansing in Idaho & MontanaI just love it when someone slips up, and tells us country folk what’s really being planned for us.

Rural cleansing is the purposeful removal of rural citizens from the countryside and the relocation of rural populations into urban areas. Many public officials and media pundits scoff at the mere suggestion that rural cleansing is taking place, but the problem, you see, is that there are people who have inadvertently left tell-tale clues we can use to piece together things for ourselves.

One of the most startling clues I’ve run across lately comes from a July 1, 1998 newspaper article in The Montanian, which is published in Libby, a tiny rural town in Northwest Montana.

Did She Just Say That?

In the article, Libby County Commissioner, Rita Windom, informs us that she and other commissioners were approached by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) state land manager, Darlene Edge, with a proposal to cooperate in driving rural residents out of the Montana countryside into cities. When commissioners responded with horror, Windom says Edge replied

“Can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money?”

This exchange took place in a meeting regarding a document called The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of which only 300 were published. According to Windom, there was very little public input because the few public meetings held were so poorly advertised.

But was this just an isolated, though shocking, incident? Did this public policy only affect Montana?  I don’t think so.  I’ll tell you why.

Sometime around 1997 I called a Boundary County, Idaho resident from Washington State regarding possible job openings in my field in Boundary County.  Her answer was that the woods had been shut down and 300 families had left.  She continued on to tell me she had seen a public land management agency document outlining a plan to empty North Idaho of people and turn the entire area into a wildlife corridor.  Naturally, she was outraged.

About ten years later, another reliable eyewitness told me that the same document had arrived at his home first.  The document was marked not for public view.  He had purchased a house that had previously been occupied by a public land management agency employee who had moved.  My source had opened the document and read it.  He confirmed that it said what my other friend had previously described to me.  In fact, he had lent her the document, which is how she happened to know what was in it.

I was never able to get my hands on that document, but when someone sent me a camera shot of the above article in The Montanian describing much the same policy being announced at much the same time as the eyewitness accounts, I wasted no time in getting a copy of the article.

Other evidence for believing that this article in The Montanian represents policies that affect Idaho, as well as Montana, is that, not too long ago, at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service public meeting about listing the wolverine on the Endangered Species list, we were told that Idaho and Montana are now considered to be in the same management region by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  The land and wildlife management policies are pretty much the same now.  This is why huge blocks of land, taking in N.W. Montana, Northern Idaho and N.E. Washington, are included in management plans for grizzly habitat, caribou habitat, wildlife corridors, etc.

Where Did Rural Cleansing Come From?

Commissioner Windom remarks, in the Montanian article, that the Draft EIS that had upset her and other commissioners was the product of five to six years’ labor by the FWP. That puts us back to around 1992, or a year later, when the Rio Earth Summit trotted out the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, and other supporting documents, for our enjoyment.

Documents and resolutions introduced at the Rio Earth Summit had been in the works for years before being introduced to the world.

Policies leading to rural cleansing are found in the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, but another important source is associated with one of the other documents introduced at Rio.  That was the Convention on Biological Diversity.  It has been shown that the Wildlands Project is the central mechanism by which the Convention on Biological Diversity is to be implemented.  The Wildlands Project calls for humans to be removed from one-half of the American land mass, and to create uninhabited corridors for wildlife to move freely from Alaska to Yellowstone Park, or farther south.  It was written by radical environmentalists working in United Nations nongovernmental organizations with the full knowledge and aid of U.S. federal agencies such as U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and others.

It appears that the Wildlands Project is now being implemented, under another name, in Idaho and the West through the Western Governors Association’s Wildlife Corridors Initiative (WCI).  To learn more about that, please see my blog, Infiltration of LittleTown U.S.A.: The Wildlands Project and Agenda 21 in Idaho.  Particularly, pay attention to the section subtitled “Nudging Us into the Cities.”

If we are paying attention, we can catch public officials and media pundits additionally telling on themselves by their perpetual use of disinformation.  One common bit of disinformation used to mislead the public is the repeated statement that Agenda 21 is an outdated and nonbinding document.  You can always tell a trained operative when statements similar to this come out of their mouth. Here is an article displaying this strategy: How the U.N.’s Agenda 21 Affects Kootenai County, Idaho.

Just two to three weeks ago, I submitted a comment on the above article.  I commented that Agenda 21 is no outdated or irrelevant document, because in 2012, the United Nations held another summit called Rio+20, in which the members reaffirmed Agenda 21 as the working document for the 21st century.  They also reaffirmed their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  The webmaster declined to publish my comment.

To back up my comment, here is a quote found on Wikipedia’s entry for Agenda 21:

“Rio+20 (2012)
Main article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
In 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called “The Future We Want”. 180 leaders from nations participated.”

Bringing it Home

When the Wikipedia entry calls the Agenda 21 document a voluntary and nonbinding action plan, the writer fails to outline the process whereby former President Clinton issued an executive order and created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which then formed policies and plans to implement Agenda 21 under soft law. Sustainable Development is the term used at United Nations and national levels to describe the goals of Agenda 21.  The PCSD generated documents and guidelines, notably Sustainable America: A New Consensus for the Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future, used by federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, EPA and others, to form policies.

These guidelines have become the overarching vision for our nation, not only for federal agencies, but also for city planners, corporate trade groups, and environmental groups, as this excerpt from Sustainable America shows.

Federal grants, monies, and other inducements, have drawn local and state governments into that implementation.  I’m sure many of those public officials were ignorant of the consequences of accepting those grants at the time.  Some are either still ignorant or too stubborn, or maybe even too complicit, to admit that they were duped.  When soft law becomes the new normal, it can be upheld by case law.  These practices are also now being codified in piecemeal legislation, comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations.

There You Go Again

Now you will be told that county comprehensive land use plans, likewise, are nonbinding documents with no real clout.  Oops—wrong again.  For example, the U.S. Forest Service uses comprehensive land use plans when writing forest plans for your region.  If your plan just happens to agree with their goals (and what are their goals? why, Sustainable Forestry, of course) the plan serves as cover for their management policies, because the Forest Service claims that they have coordinated with your county, as required by law, by having read and taken under consideration your comprehensive land use plan.  See this video and hear F.S. employees state this over and over again, as they are being questioned regarding their latest forest plan for Idaho.  I have also read that comprehensive land use plans can be used as a basis for zoning regulations and other county ordinances.

This is why various groups want to embed statements that are conducive to Sustainable Development in your county comprehensive land use plans.

Though the disinformation campaign strategy in Idaho is still one of denial and Alinsky-like mockery of Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists, as exemplified in this Spokesman-Review article, the strategy is now shifting elsewhere.  Rosa Koire, speaking of California, describes how the charge of conspiracy theory is there giving way to the position that Agenda 21, and its related documents and policies, are real, but that these policies are the only feasible and just way of coping with global problems such as climate change, overpopulation, poverty and environmental degradation.

It’s the New normal, Just Accept it.

It’s no surprise, then, that FOX News just published an article entitled Foundations plan to pay news media to cover radical UN agenda. The article describes how a cadre of journalists is being trained to win the public over to U.N. Sustainable Development policies.

Comic Relief

That’s why I just chortle when I find articles like this one, from The Montanian, containing past candid (though Kafkaesque)  quotes from officials who hadn’t yet sufficiently learned to dissemble.  I hope you will read the entire article, as it has additional interesting comments about the changing use of conservation easements and the way Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was circumventing the public and county commissioners to get its way. The article is reprinted by the gracious permission of The Montanian Newspaper.

And just so we can do a little mocking of our own, let me refer you to this funny, short short video called My Daughter’s New Agenda 21 Bedroom

But, then again, after having a good chuckle, let’s move past the mockery and get down to the debate–if we can get one.  If journalists are going to try to convince us that Sustainable Development, as envisioned by members and advisory groups to the United Nations, is the best path for America, we need to be ready to engage in a logical and reasonable discussion.  And that will be a serious conversation, indeed.



The Montanian.  “FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living.”  Libby, Montana: July 1, 1998.

*Sorry, the print on the first page is small.  After posting this, I realized I had made a transcription of the first page of this article.  If you scroll down, past the header front page at the bottom, you will see page 1 transcribed.  Page 2 is large enough to read easily.  When I got this article from microfiche, the greater amount of print on page one inhibited our ability to make the print larger and, thus, more readable.


The Montanian Article page 1

The Montanian Page 2

The Montanian Header








The The Montanian July 1, 1998 (TRANSCRIPTION Page 1)

FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living

Social Engineering is in the Works

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has big changes planned for the way it manages wildlife, hunting and rural living patterns. And even though the proposed changes could impact hunters, property owners and anyone who enjoys the outdoors, most Montanians are unaware of the changes.

Lincoln County Commissioner, Rita Windom, says she has only recently learned about the plan, entitled “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.”
“This is a document that should mean something to everybody,” Windom said Monday, June 29. “They only printed 300 copies of this document, and they only printed 250 of the actual EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). They had seven meetings in the state of Montana and I happened to get a hold of [it, because of] a meeting I had gone to back in 1992.”

Windom said the plan outlines big changes.  “We were just horrified because it changes the way lands are managed and…it dramatically (effects) counties,” she said.
“This document is called “The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.” The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks prepared it. They’ve been working on it for five or six years at a cost of $600,000,” she said.

“There are five alternatives and they don’t list the preferred ones, which is unusual.”
Windom said she is concerned about the lack of public input into what are potentially major changes.

“One of the scary things about this document is that…the public input doesn’t go to the game commission for review (and) it doesn’t go to the people. Pat Graham, Director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, is the decision maker. He gets to select which alternatives or a combination thereof.

“[The plan] allows some public comments…at meetings. [But] they were so ill advertised. They had the biggest one in Libby, which was the one we demanded, and we only had nine people. The meeting was May 26.”

Windom says the plan would allow FWP to sell more non-resident hunting licenses while reducing the number of licenses available for Montana residents.

“They are going to ask the Legislature to change the way they do hunting licenses. They want to allow more non-resident licenses in their formula for licenses. The way I understand it is that there will be fewer for resident hunters,” she said.
Worse, the non-resident licenses will be sold to the highest bidder.

“It will be all market-based, highest bidder. We think that is pretty unfair,” she said.
Windom says the plan goes way beyond the management of just wildlife. It also includes plans to manipulate human population in rural areas.

“They are saying they want social changes. They talk about the increasing importance of environmental concerns nationally, and the increasing reliance on referendums and grass-roots politics for political change. They [FWP] say that social and economic values towards natural resources are becoming less consumptive…nationally. The emergence of the animal rights movement exemplifies national pressure to shift to a less consumptive use at state and local levels,” Windom said, citing the plan.

Windom said she is disturbed that FWP is allowing national trends to dictate its policy.
“What is the reasoning behind allowing an animal rights movement to dictate policy on how we use Montana lands?”

Windom read aloud from Alternative 3 of the plan: “Land owners would increase, through expanded access, incentives and habitat programs. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments including those in lieu of personal property tax.” That means to me, currently we have conservation easements and they pay personal property tax on buildings, farm equipment and livestock. They they pay a payment in lieu of taxes on real estate, very small…. [FWP] is going to change the use of the land and take the personal property off the land on conservation easements, which would mean ranchers and farmers could no longer use the land the way it is currently being used. That is a big departure in the way we have known conservation easements in the past,” Windom said.
Windom said the plan would in essence tax rural property owners for the wildlife on their property.

“This is even more scary. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments, including those in lieu of personal property tax, however new initiatives pertaining to wildlife on the urban interface may [a]ffect some local residents through tax assessments, meaning that those who choose to live in the countryside would have to pay a tax to Fish, Wildlife and Parks so they could manage more effectively the wildlife there.”
Windom said one FWP employee told her the plan is designed to push rural residents into urban areas.

“When I was in Thompson Chain of Lakes meeting, Darlene Edge (FWP state lands manager) told me she didn’t understand the attitude of county commissioners. She said, “You are so reluctant to work with us on these issues…can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from the rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…you know your timber receipts are declining. You are going to have less money to work with. Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money,” Windom said.

“He said the general public knew about this before the game commission,” Windom said. “The game commission really doesn’t get any input in it.”
Windom said FWP is working to circumvent negative public opinion of the plan in at least one area.

“We had a situation up in the West Kootenai some months ago where they [FWP] came up and wanted to do a conservation easement, and the people were…

*Read the rest of the article on page 2 above

From Eric Vimont regarding Christian County food freedom battle:

Hi friends,
The next round in the war for the right to eat the food of our choice will take place this coming Friday May 1st at 9:00am at the Christian county “justice” center. It is the building on the south side of the old courthouse square in Ozark.

We would appreciate a overwhelming turn out, as we truly need to overwhelm the bias, and conflict of interest that exists within the court system today.
It is a very important thing for the officials to notice(and they have already) a large group of interested observers.

This Hearing is about the defendants (them) asking for the court to dismiss the case because we have named the members as individuals and not as a board, which can hide behind “official immunity”.
Also it is not possible to call a board to the witness stand to examine their answers for perjury, and yes they have refused to answer our direct questions, which I believe is a form of perjury.

I am happy to discuss the current status of the battle, and hope to see you there.

No Victim – No Crime!
Eric Vimont       417-366-0999

August 5th is a very big day for the Missouri Constitution, and this is a VERY lengthy post…So get a glass of tea, or whatever tickles your taste buds, and get ready to read.

There are 5 proposed Constitutional Amendments that will be on the ballot in this mid-cycle election. We want everyone to make up their own minds on whether or not these are good ideas for the freedom and well being of the Citizens of Missouri. Below, you will find the Secretary of State listing of all of these proposed amendments, and then below each amendment, a pro and a con on each of these proposals.

Please make truly informed decisions and do not take the ballot language as being a truthful indicator of the actual effects of these amendments should they pass.

2014 Ballot Measures

The following ballot measures have been certified for the August 5, 2014primary election.

Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 1

[full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) CCS#2 for SS for HCS HJR Nos. 11 & 7]

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?

The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to guarantee the rights of Missourians to engage in farming and ranching practices, subject to any power given to local government under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding farming and ranching.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

                                                                 Amendment 1- The “Right to Farm”

Pro for Amendment 1:

(excerpt from a very lengthy article Today’s Farmer Magazine)

Why support it?

Missouri Farmers Care and others list the following reasons for their support.
•    It could protect farm families that don’t have a lot of resources. “Large corporations have the financial resources to relocate or fight legal battles,” explained Dan Kleinsorge, executive director of Missouri Farmers Care. “Most farmers don’t have this same ability, and they need an amendment enshrined in the state constitution to protect them from groups that want to harm agriculture through misleading legislation and ballot initiatives. It will also give farmers a last line of defense in the courts to challenge laws intended to put farmers out of business.”
•    It won’t protect those who violate laws or regulations. “The Missouri Farming Rights Amendment will not give farmers a blank check or exempt them from common sense regulation,” Kleinsorge said. “Bad actors that are breaking the law will not benefit.”
•    It could keep food affordable. “Farmers work hard to make sure that we have food available at a reasonable price for consumers,” said Don Nikodim, executive director of the Missouri Pork Association, and chairman of Missouri Farmers Care. “If we weren’t able to use modern technology to raise crops and livestock, less food would be available and the cost of food would go up.”
•    The amendment may protect farm-
related jobs. “Agriculture is Missouri’s number one industry,” said Oetting. “Not passing this amendment could jeopardize Missouri’s economy, jobs and family businesses.”
Who opposes it, and why?

In January 2014, a group called Missouri’s Food for America gathered in Jefferson City to argue against the amendment. Wes Shoemyer, a Monroe County farmer and former state legislator, leads the group. He argues that the amendment would protect big corporate agriculture such as Monsanto and Cargill.

Hurst counters that Missouri has farmers of all sizes and types, and all will benefit. “We need all kinds of agriculture,” he said. “We benefit from diversity, and this amendment guarantees that we will maintain that diversity.”

How goes the battle?

In March, according to the Missouri Liberty Project, the Wickers Group surveyed 400 Missourians registered and likely to vote in the August 2014 election, and found 69 percent support Amendment 1.

But Dan Kleinsorge says farmers aren’t counting their chickens before they hatch. “This is an uphill battle because radical animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States have millions of dollars at their disposal to buy ads targeting Missouri farmers,” he said. “But we are committed to raising the funds for a fully fledged campaign to inform every Missourian about why our state needs this amendment to protect family farmers and food choices. Farmers will be the heart and soul of our campaign.”

Oetting thinks the battle for public support for agriculture should continue beyond the August election. “Today, most Americans are three to five generations removed from the farm,” she said. “They don’t understand that science and technology have taken agriculture into the 21st century, as with all business and industry. Farmers have fallen short by not communicating how new production methods help us to be good stewards in caring for the land and our animals.”

The Con on Amendment 1

Missouri Amendment Could Hurt Family Farms

by Richard Oswald President of MFU

Farming is a tough business made harder by difficult weather and markets. Like most survivors of life-changing events, those of us left on the farm have had experiences that shape who we are today.

Looking back over my 60-plus years on a family farm, I see attitude, sympathetic lenders, luck, and most of all family relationships, as reasons why I still farm.

Family farmers have waited and hoped government would do something to mend the farm situation in their favor. But in government eyes, bigger has always been better — even when bigger meant more pollution, less competition and higher costs.

Realities of today are that though U.S. agriculture seems a national icon, corporations, some native to foreign countries, are busily replacing people like me.

The National Cattleman’s Beef Association and the American Meat Institute opposed labeling meat and poultry according to its country of origin because their largest dues-paying members aren’t cattlemen at all, but multinational meat packers.

During recent farm bill negotiations, disaster assistance for U.S. beef producers hit hard by weather was held hostage in an effort to kill Country of Origin Labeling, known by the acronym COOL.

In order to have identity, family farmers must have products. Denying us the right to label our safe, wholesome, home-grown food denies not only who we are, but our very existence.

Family farms are not far from extinction as rural populations fall. Many of us who remain, even large farms, can claim family traditions. But the fact is that farm bill mischief and politics have hastened our demise.

Here in Missouri, where agriculture has always been mainstay, we are no strangers to big food. Traditional livestock growing regions in Missouri are two sides of the same coin as family farm cattle herds graze within feet of massive corporate poultry and hog confinements.

Most livestock confinements are controlled by the same meat packers who would deny my right to label my products. Among those corporate entities is Smithfield Foods.

Many of us in rural Missouri were dismayed when the General Assembly set about dismantling the rights of property owners by limiting recurring nuisance liability for Smithfield. As many of our Missouri state representatives and senators crafted legislation protecting it from its own pollution troubles, Smithfield was in buyout talks with a company based in China.

Liability from nuisance lawsuits like those faced by financially challenged Smithfield subsidiary Premium Standard Farms could have been a sticking point for Chinese buyers. Thanks to politics, it’s not an issue any more just as limits placed on foreign ownership of Missouri land have been redrawn to fit the buyout by China’s Shuanghui International.

In still another instance of pandering to corporate food control, the Missouri General Assembly has placed Constitutional Amendment 1 on the November ballot. Supposedly designed to assure the right to farm for Missouri citizens, its vague wording is bound to favor corporations, even Chinese corporations, over Missouri family farms. That’s because Supreme Court rulings that a corporation is a person play into the hands of Amendment 1 supporters of corporate food control.

Amendment 1 in Missouri could grant even the worst corporations the right to do whatever they want when they claim to be “farmer” or “rancher.”

Some say we can never return to the days when family farms produced the bulk of what we eat. That will be true so long as Missourians continue to elect those who favor the politics of big food. Missouri voters can reverse that trend. It’s time they did.


Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 5

[full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR 36]

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?

State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to expand the right to keep and bear arms to include ammunition and related accessories for such arms. This amendment also removes the language that states the right to keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. This amendment does not prevent the legislature from limiting the rights of certain felons and certain individuals adjudicated as having a mental disorder.

“no”; vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding arms, ammunition, and accessories for such arms.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Amendment 5- Unalienable Right to Bear Arms

This one will be in reverse order. The cons will be first followed by the pros:

Con on Amendment 5


Ballot language  Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? 


Current Article I, Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.


Proposed new Article I, Section 23That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons].The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.


In the proposed new amendment shown above, words enclosed in [  ] will be removed from existing law. Words in Bold will be added to existing law.


The one positive about this amendment is the removal of the words “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons”.


However there are several problems with this amendment:


1. The very first line reads “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms ………..”What is a normal function? There is no definition of “normal function” in state statutes.  This will be subject to future interpretation.


2. “The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable”(Unalienable rights are rights which cannot be given away or given up.)  The next line reads Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” So these rights are unalienable UNLESS they are restricted? In which case the restrictions will be subject to strict scrutiny. Who will impose restrictions? Who will provide the scrutiny for said restrictions?


3. “Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to prevent the passage of general laws by the General Assembly that limit such rights for convicted violent felons or persons adjudged to be a danger to self or others as the result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity”. While many will see this language as reasonable, allowing government to determine who can possess firearms is fraught with unseen and unknown danger. Historical cases of governments using “mental illness” as an excuse to detain and imprison its citizens are many.


The Constitution Party of Missouri recommends a “NO” vote on Amendment #5.


Pro on Amendmet 5:

Addressing the three CP concerns:1) It’s clear that the anti-gun folks want to take our ability to USE our firearms, even if they can’t take the guns, themselves, away. Protecting things needed to effectively use them, like ammo and accessories, is a good addition to our constitutional rights. If we had not included “typical to the normal function of such arms” the opposition would still have been able to try to limit magazine capacity, etc.2) “Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” is probably the most important phrase in the amendment. We always have had laws restricting our God-given unalienable rights, and we always will. Some of those restrictions are necessary to any society, if you are going to respect and protect OTHER’S God-given unalienable rights.

For instance, I think most of us would agree that a law against slander (restricting someone’s free speech rights) would be appropriate. Likewise, we would agree that there should be legal consequences when someone deliberately lies about or misrepresents a product. If a filling station sold you “gas” that was really water, you would want him to be accountable for ruining your engine.

And I think most of us would agree that a law restricting target practice in a crowded urban neighborhood was an appropriate restriction of the right to keep and bear arms.

All of those things would pass the legal standard of review called “the strict scrutiny test”.

A law, however, saying you can’t own a gun if you live in a crowded neighborhood, or fire one in protection of your life or property, would not pass the strict scrutiny legal test.

The addition of that language to SJR 36 is a direct response to the modern courts’ tendency to “dumb down” our rights by applying “lesser” standards of review of laws restricting our rights. Increasingly, courts are redefining and diminishing our rights by applying something called “the rational basis test”. Learn more about it here:…/make-believe-judging-the and ://…/other_pubs/neily_georgetown_journal.pdf

In sum, the strict scrutiny clause in SJR 36 is not at all opening the door for more infringements on our gun rights, but it IS forcing the courts to use the toughest standard of review when such unconstitutional laws are challenged.

3) With respect to the final clause, the current CP position is: “While many will see this language as reasonable, allowing government to determine who can possess firearms is fraught with unseen and unknown danger. Historical cases of governments using “mental illness” as an excuse to detain and imprison its citizens are many.”

Again, I think most of us would agree that the state SHOULD be able to restrict the rights of SOME people — those serving time in prison for murder, for instance. Such people have rightly lost the right to move about freely and to associate with whomever they choose. And they have also lost the right to keep and bear arms.

The language in SJR 36 builds new fences around the state’s ability to make those sorts of restrictions. For instance, right now a VA doctor can unilaterally make the determination that veteran is unfit to own a gun. With SJR 36, the individual gets due process — a court of law has to determine that he is a real danger before he loses any rights.

SJR 36 greatly ties the hands of the state and provides unprecedented protection to Missourian’s right to keep and bear arms.




Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 7

[full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS HJR 68]

Official Ballot Title:

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges?

This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state’s Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments.  Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited.  This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives by increasing the state sales/use tax by three-quarters of one percent for 10 years. This amendment further prohibits a change in gasoline taxes and prohibits toll roads or bridges. This amendment also requires these measures to be re-approved by voters every 10 years.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives.

If passed, this measure will increase the state sales/use tax.


Amendment 7: Increased Tax for Roads and Bridges

Pro for Amendment 7:

From LTE Columbia Tribune:

Recognizing a severe shortage of funds to maintain and build Missouri transportation facilities, supporters faced an unprecedented dilemma. Motor fuel taxes no longer are adequate, so they propose turning to a three-fourths-cent sales tax increase expected to produce $534 million annually over 10 years, with $54 million sent to cities and counties for local improvements. An election is proposed every 10 years to renew the tax.

The Missouri Department of Transportation has done a very good job designing the program, headlined by an expansion of Interstate 70 across the state to three lanes each direction. Local improvements include runway improvements and a new terminal at Columbia Regional Airport, extending Stadium Boulevard to Route WW and adding two hours of service daily to the city bus system.

Little opposition is heard regarding the need for the construction but, led by Gov. Jay Nixon, a sizable body of opposition has arisen to the funding mechanism, which argues that the sales tax visits unfairly on lower-income people and that large trucks are exempted from higher fees or taxes.

This is a legitimate argument. The proposal would have been more palatable had some of the revenue come from a hike in diesel fuel taxes, but is this reason enough to vote “no” on Amendment 7?

To get any sort of funding proposal through the General Assembly, powerful motor fuel and truck lobbies had to be placated. And, as mentioned earlier, motor fuel taxes simply will not provide the needed revenue. Even if the truck fuel tax had been hiked somewhat, sales taxes still would have been needed.

Opponents worry about lower-income people whose spending pattern exposes them disproportionately to sales taxes, but these people along with everyone else in Missouri need a revitalized transportation system. What will opponents of the sales tax propose instead? Just saying “no” is not enough. The implication of their opposition is to deny a transportation fix indefinitely in hopes the avoided tax increase will be used more to their liking, a faint hope indeed.

So, it’s a tough proposition. All of us would like to fix transportation without resorting to a sales tax, but this is not a realistic option. In Missouri, we have avoided biting this bullet as long as we should. The benefits of improving transportation will accrue to everyone. A good portion of sales tax revenue will come from visitors as well as residents, painlessly enlarging the pool.

Supporters of Amendment 7 naturally enough include industries that will benefit from the spending. The projects will have beneficial economic impact for some sectors and locations, but so it will be no matter how revenue is raised.

Time to bite the bullet and vote “Yes” on Amendment 7.

Con on Amendment 7:

(Excerpts from Vote No on Amendment 7— More Info at the link)


  • The Tax is Unfair
  • The biggest beneficiary of the tax, the trucking industry, will pay almost none of it – despite the fact that trucks do most of the damage to our roads. Not only will the trucking industry avoid paying their fair share through a gas tax, the industry pays almost no sales tax, since the General Assembly previously exempted the purchase of many trucks, trailers and truck parts from state and local sales taxes.
  • Most truck traffic does not even serve Missouri business; those trucks will be getting an entirely free ride courtesy of Missouri taxpayers. According to the Missouri Freight Study, 55% of Missouri’s truck traffic by tonnage has neither an origin nor destination in Missouri.
  • Those who benefit the least from Amendment 7, people of modest incomes who do less driving and pay a disproportionate share of their incomes toward sales tax, will bear the greatest burden of this regressive tax.
  • It has been longstanding policy of virtually every state in the nation to rely on those that benefit the most from highways, auto owners and other highway users, to pay the costs of building and maintaining highways through a gas tax.
  • Worst of all, the ballot issue prohibits any increase in user fees like gas taxes or tolls during the time when the sales tax is in effect, assuring that the outrageous inequity in funding the state’s highway program will effectively be permanent.(Note: trucks do pay significant road taxes but studies have concluded over the years that the heaviest trucks do the majority of damage to the roads and only pay about half of their actual costs to the system. The sales tax will dramatically increase that inequity.)
  • The Tax is Excessive


  • This is the largest tax increase in Missouri’s history. Missouri is struggling to pay for essential services such as public education, the social safety-net, healthcare, public safety, and criminal justice. The General Assembly has made clear its belief that lower taxes will attract economic growth and has generally acted to restrict spending and cut taxes. To enact the largest tax increase in our history at this time is hypocritical and counterproductive. Missouri’s families are already hard pressed to pay their bills during this period of slow economic recovery; adding to their burden at this time is wrong.
  • Because of one-time infusions of funds through some questionable borrowing, and the windfall of the federal economic stimulus program, MoDOT has enjoyed the largest construction program in its history over the last ten years. Asking Missouri’s taxpayers to make this record rate of expenditure the “new normal” by continuing to spend at this extravagant pace is unrealistic, unnecessary and unfair, especially when just about every other function of state government is operating under austerity conditions.

Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 8

[full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR 48]

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a “Veterans Lottery Ticket” and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans?

The annual cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to create a “Veterans Lottery Ticket.” This amendment further provides that the revenue from the sale of these tickets will be used for projects and services related to veterans.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to create a “Veterans Lottery Ticket.”

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes

Amendment 8 “Veterans Lottery”

Seemingly the best source for thoughts on Amendment 8 is Ballotpedia. Below are excerpts:

Pro on Amendment 8:

Proponents say the lottery would help fund the state’s seven veterans homes, which have a waiting list of 1,900 people. They say veterans’ lotteries in Illinois, Kansas and Iowa have raised millions of dollars.

Con on Amendment 8:

Rep. LaFaver opposed the bill because of the existing lottery and its lack of contribution to the education system. He said, “The lottery is one of the most inefficient ways that our state government can produce revenue because for every dollar that somebody buys a lottery ticket, only 25 cents actually makes it to a school or veteran home.” LaFaver is unopposed to increasing funding for veterans, but said, “Let’s advocate for it in the budget. Let’s advocate for it through an efficient revenue stream. Let’s do that without taking from education.”



Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 9

[full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR 27]

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects?

State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to specify that electronic data and communications have the same protections from unreasonable searches and seizures as persons, papers, homes, and effects.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding protections for electronic communications and data.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Amendment 9- Electronic Effects 4th Amendment Protection

Again, the best source for both pro and con information on this amendment looks like Ballotpedia. Here are 2 small excerpts, and you are encouraged to click through and read all the info:


Amendment 9 would take us into the 21st century by adding electronic data to protection from unreasonable search and seizure of our “persons, papers, homes and effects. This is a logical step in an electronic age.


Amendment 9 might have been a good idea right up until June 25, when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court agreed that law enforcement officers need a warrant to search digital information on a cell phone seized from someone who has been arrested. […] There’s no need for Missouri to pile on with extra privacy laws, just as there’s no need for superfluous gun laws or property-rights laws. The more clutter you stick into the state constitution, the more problems you cause in interpreting it.




 HB 2138, which will open to Missourians the clear and codified right to decide what they want to eat and from whom they would like to acquire their food, needs to move through the process. You can read the bill and a little about it here.
 The bill had a hearing and one of the questions from the committee was, “Don’t we already have the ability to sell directly?” They fully realized that raw milk was a serious exception to that question.
 In reality we do. But in our current regulatory control paradigm, if we do we are likely to be visited by “meat detectives” claiming we’re engaged in illegal meat or poultry sales.Were that true, Morningland could have made cheese for private exchange and milked their cows for the commercial dairy industry while taking some to make smaller batches for direct trade and it would have enabled them to keep the farm operational. Were that true, I could buy 5 pounds of lamb from my neighbor without any concern. I could buy cheese from another neighbor with no issues from regulatory “authorities”. I could buy egg dishes and kefir from anyone I chose…etc, etc.
 Getting this bill out of committee and into Rules then onto the floor will raise the question in the general public’s mind about if they are, or are not, smart enough to decide what they want to eat without a bureaucrat intervening. The Committee Chair, Eric Burlison and the Speaker of the House, Tim Jones, need to be called and encouraged to move this bill. Again, it is HR2138, sponsored by Rep. Mike Moon.