My Blog List

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

A Dead Farmer To Save Us

How can this happen in America?  How can you have government agencies telling people what kind of food they can eat?

Because it's the law.

Here's a video of 4 FDA agents busting a Southern California business that sells raw milk products.

The last time I looked, there was no provision in the Constitution that allowed the feds to control food.

No matter how good of an idea you might think it is, if it's unconstitutional, you can't do it.  Period.  End of story.  Move along, there's nothing to see here.

If enough people feel strongly enough, you amend the Constitution.  Really, the process is in place, and it works.

As I've noted in the past, if a state wants to enact such laws and agencies, they are free to do so, as long as a personal guaranteed right is not infringed upon.

With all of these types of laws and agencies, what gets in my craw the most is that the presumption is that some appointed bureaucrat somehow knows better than I do about how I should live my life.  There is the presumption that I am too stupid to know that putting heroin in my veins might not end well.  Or that by eating yogurt made from unpaturized milk might increase my chances of death or illness.

At most, the states should require disclosure similar to that found on cigarettes.  "If you eat this container of fetid milk product mixed with freshly squeezed goat urine, you will have an increased chance of illness or death.  Enjoy!"

What's the message these shock troops are trying to convey?  "Don't mess with us.  We will come at you, guns a-blazing, for selling raw milk or any other reason WE feel is justified."

Why in the hell does the FDA even have employees with guns as part of their official duties anyways?  They're all about food and drug quality, not Mexican drug cartels.  Couldn't they call the cops if they were threatened, just like the rest of us?

I guess they see people who like to color outside of the lines as threats to their power and control.  That simply cannot be allowed.

Accept The Challenge

This "Food Nazi" stuff seems to be happening with greater frequency.  Sooner or later, something drastic is going to happen.  One of the cops is going to get overzealous and shoot a goat farmer.  Or, a goat farmer is going to shoot a cop for infringing on his Constitutional rights.

If a cop is shot by a farmer - regardless of how morally or Constitutionally valid - the Food Nazi movement will grow.  More agencies will get more cops, and more farms will be shut down.  Public sentiment will be on the side of the statists, and this control frenzy will grow.  Nanny Knows Best.

I think for any chance of this insanity to be reversed, it is going to come at the cost of a farmer or grocer being shot and killed by one of the food cops.  It needs to be on video, so people can see with their own two eyes what these people do.

Freedom propaganda needs to be stronger and more convincing than the statist propaganda.  And it's going to take a dead farmer to drive home the point.

Please click our advertiser links. They pay us so you don't have to. A click a day is all we ask!

Copyright 2010 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates.


Josh said...


GunRights4US said...

And there is the reason that ALL government costumed enforcers of every stripe get "freaky" when a camera comes out!

Anonymous said...

I cannot agree. Raw milk has a long history of causing health problems. It has probably killed more people then any other food. There is a reason why pasturization was invented. This food store was repeatedly warned about breaking the law. They were openly agressive about their intent to break the law. The police expected a show of resistance and went in ready. It is not legal to sell or give away raw milk and products made from raw milk. How could anyone possibly object to such a common sense law?

suek said...

Ah yes...the anti-raw milk vigilante again.

Tell me - do you also object to mother's breast feeding their babies? That's raw milk also, by the way.

>>It is not legal to sell or give away raw milk and products made from raw milk>>

Then why are there certified raw milk dairies? What laws are presently in place to prohibit sale of raw milk? Are they state, local or federal?

Is it illegal to drink raw milk? If not, what gives the State the right to prohibit one person from drinking it when another has that right?

Maybe we should just kill all the milk goats, sheep and cows to insure that nobody will drink the milk raw? Oh yeah - and horses too - there are even people who drink horse's milk - though not in the US, I think. Still...with this big a danger - this should be a world wide ban, don't you think?

Now - which is the greater danger - milk itself, or depriving children of milk in countries where pasteurization is not available?

Joseph said...

Anon @ 7:59AM
It seems you credit the reduction in death to pasteurization instead of maybe the understanding of proper sanitation? Just because they both showed up in history around the same time does not mean they should both be credited for the decrease in deaths. Have you read any of Pasteur's work? Have you read Gerald Geison's research who studied Pasteur's released notes? If so you still reached the conclusion that pasteurization is 'good for us'? Please explain.

Are you also an ardent supporter of 'germ theory'?

Health argument aside why do you believe it is acceptable to infringe on my right to choose what I want to do with my body? Wouldn't it make sense to allow the raw milk people to die off within a generation due to our rampant intake of poisoned milk? Darwin at his finest wouldn't you agree?

Chief Instructor said...

Josh, indeed.

Guns, there is no acceptable justification for having 4 armed officers seize milk products. It sounds even more stupid as I write it out.

Anon, this isn't about milk. It's about the freedom to choose. Show me where in the Constitution the fedgov has been granted the power to seize yogurt.

Sue, don't put any ideas in his head. They are already talking about not allowing cows and steers because they fart methane. THey're killing the planet, doncha know?

Great question about breast milk. Are we soon going to have the Hooter's Police?

Joseph, thanks for your reply. You saved me a lot of writing! Perfectly posed questions across the board.

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Morningland Dairy in MO, is currently fighting the same thing. It is believed they were targeted after this CA raid. They have been ordered to destroy about 50,000# of product which amounts to about $250,000.

They are trying to hang tough, but the pressure of the "powers that be" as well as the quickness with which the government is trying to make everything happen is making it difficult for the dairy.

This is a dairy that has been in business for 30 years and has NEVER MADE ANYONE ILL FROM THEIR PRODUCTS... Interesting that large, pasteurized systems cannot even make this claim.

Anon, let me eat what I want, and I will afford you the same right.

MikeH. said...


Shame on you for promoting mass hysteria through conspiracy theory propaganda. Anyone with half a brain knows the government is NOT out to control food production / distribution. Or should I amend that to EVERYONE with half a brain...?

Something tells me Anon will never have to worry about his food supplies. Tyrants always take care of their secret police and snitches. :o


Anonymous said...

Not only can the govt. tell you what you can eat, they love putting things in your food and not telling you what you are getting. I just read a blog called Challenged Survival by Mamma Bear. She states we are all getting a 'healthy' dose of ammonia in our fast food burgers. She cites a New York Times article to back this up. This article also mentions our kids get this in school lunches and we buy this in the chicken and hamburger aisles in the grocery stores. Funny I am not seeing this on the ingredients listing. Did you all know this? Is this better than raw milk?

Anonymous said...

You are confusing two things. You do have the right to drink raw milk. Get a cow and milk it and you can drink it. You do not have a right to sell raw milk (with few exceptions) because it is a dangerous product.

Yes I believe in germ theory. Who doesn't? This is the 21st century!

You have to be kidding! You don't think pasturization is responsible for saving millions and millions of lives since it's inception? You could not be that stupid.

Of course the police were armed. Many years ago when traveling in Europe I saw various police departments that did not carry guns. Now all police carry guns. Why wouldn't they be armed? Are the police in your city/county armed?

I think it is ironic that you bring up the risks in hamburger. Ironic because with pasturization (cooking) hamburger is safe and all pathogens are killed. This is the reason raw milk is dangerous. Duh!

Joseph said...

Anon @ 7:46AM, the migration away from people knowing where their food comes from and practicing proper livestock (and plant for that matter) handling techniques has caused bastardized processes such as pasteurization of milk during the diary farm to consumer process. One question to the health discussion: Would you rather have unpasteurized milk from a small farm that practices strict sanitation and sterilization techniques or would you rather have pasteurized milk from a corporate dairy farm that constantly has violations and unsanitary conditions? We can banter back and forth about health all day but you have your opinion and I have mine do you really think you're going to change your opinion no matter what evidence I present?

Germ theory. The point was within the context of the discussion of Pasteur which I didn't properly lay out so we will leave it alone or it will cause the death of billions of electrons.

To get back to the subject why should my choice be infringed because of your beliefs? If I want to engage in other 'high risk' behaviors do we pass more laws to 'protect' me from myself or do you let people make their own choices?

suek said...

>>If I want to engage in other 'high risk' behaviors do we pass more laws to 'protect' me from myself or do you let people make their own choices?>> HIV, for example??

Now _there's_ a tar baby...!

Chief Instructor said...

Pearls, It is happening all over the country, and the police with the FDA and the USDA are becoming more and more aggressive. It's amazing to see on video.

This honestly doesn't make sense to me - why they would be so aggressive over this issue, unless it was to want to totally control food production.

Mike, what other reason could there be? No one is complaining, people are seeking the product, no one is getting sick. WTF?

And you might be on to something with Anon...

Cat, all I can say is whenever there is a health recall issue, it is at facilities that have the government seal of approval. I've NEVER heard of a recall at an organic/raw facility.

Maybe it's because the organic/raw facilities give a damn about what they produce, not just the bucks involved.


You do not have a right to sell raw milk (with few exceptions) because it is a dangerous product.

Really? The ninth amendment seems to disagree with you about my rights. And the tenth specifically precludes the federal government from telling me I can't buy or sell raw milk.

Tell me - upon which article or amendment of the Constitution are these food laws based?

Really. Answer the question.


If I want to engage in other 'high risk' behaviors do we pass more laws to 'protect' me from myself or do you let people make their own choices?

Sorry, no personal choice or the associated risk is allowed. Why are you so selfish? Don't you know that The State will have to fix your boo-boo's?

Sue, HIV is a great example of personal choice and responsibility. If you make the choice to engage in acts which result in your infection, tag, you're it. Deal with the consequences, on your own dime.

If your choices infected another innocent person - an unborn child, for instance - state or county medical services could be used to care for this kid.

We have no chance to succeed as a society unless there are consequences for our actions - good and bad.

Joseph said...

suek, I was thinking more of sticking eagle talons through my skin and hanging from them like the scene from "A Man Called Horse" but that is a conversation for another day ;)

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Another thought might be to sell Raw Milk products within the state and not crossing the state lines....

It would put it under the 9th Amendment then and out of the Fed Gov control....

But that is a fight for the courts - man, this gun thing needs to wind through at a more acceptable clip....

Just thinking here....

Anonymous said...

There is this phony belief that if we just all lived like they did in the 17th century everyone would be happy healthy and wise. But we cannot go back because there are 7 billion people on earth. But even more importantly in the 17th century half of all children died before reaching age 5 and 3/4ths of those who made it past age five died before age 21. Most of these deaths were the result of simple common everyday disease. Many of these diseases were food and water borne. Pasturization was a godsend in preventing many of these disease. To state that pasturization was only to compensate for the bastardization of dairy methodolgy is an incredible misunderstanding of history and disease. To answer your question directly: Yes I would rather consume dairy products from dairys that pasturize their milk then consume raw milk from a dairy that practices exlempary sanitation. It is not possible to make a cows body fluids clean by washing it's teats or any other sanitation practice.
To answer the other question regarding rights: This is NOT about your right to consume anything you want. As I said you are free to consume anything you want. This is about putting unsafe foods into the food supply. Once the tainted food gets into the supply it can go anywhere and even people who do not want to take the risk you are willing to take are exposed to it. Eat what you want! Lick the barn floor! I don't care. But don't put dangerous food into the national food supply based on some 17th century fad idea that somehow raw milk is "healthy". It is not it is the animals body fluids.

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Sorry..... Laughing so hard on this end....

It is EXACTLY the sanitation of the animal and milking facility.... It's not the "bodily fluids" otherwise calves would be dropping like flies.

And it wouldn't hurt you in the least to allow people to sell their products... Don't like / don't buy.

And no, not looking to go back to the 1700's... Just looking for something different than you are.... How about live and let live? It in no way hurts ir helps you... What do you care?

suek said...

>>To answer your question directly:>> answered _one_ question directly. You didn't touch the ones about ... you know... Constitutionality. You where does the government get the right to restrict my right to buy raw milk, should I choose to.

>>But we cannot go back because there are 7 billion people on earth. But even more importantly in the 17th century half of all children died before reaching age 5 and 3/4ths of those who made it past age five died before age 21.>>

So...maybe a return to the 17th century practices would be a good thing - it would reduce the world's population.

Jack said...

Chief, tell us the truth, is Anonymous really one of those nasty hippies from San Francisco that you're paying to say stupid sh!t? Cause nobody can be that opinionated, wrong, and downright stupid on so many topics unless they're some kind of liberal stoner freak looking for a handout. Or they might be some FedGov agent who is being opinionated, wrong, and downright stupid on purpose just to rile us up into saying something incriminating. Eh, whatever, either way they're still an idiot. lol

Joseph said...

Anon @ 7:59AM
It seems you now putting words in our posts that were not there (17th century really?) so there is little point in continuing this dialog. Include with that the fact you do not seem to want to answer questions completely combined with your disregard for individual liberties and this discussion is continuing towards the net benefit Please continue on your way on the net and I encourage you to find a group of like minded folks, you might want to check out MSNBC and watch Keith Olbermann.

Good day to you.

Chief Instructor said...

Anon, I don't care how much you want the feds to be able to do something. I don't care if it gives you a Chris Matthews tingle down the leg. I want you to answer my question: What article or amendment gives the federal government the right to have anything to do with our food supply? It's a very simple question.

Any state in the nation could enact as draconian or as liberal food laws as they wished. Not the feds.

Pearls, see, the statists don't see it that way. If just one person is saved from transfats, or sugar, or salt or raw milk, then it's worth restricting the rights of the entire hive.

Nanny Knows Best.

Sue, no, the statists don't want a reduction on the population. Gotta have the proles to work the collective farms and factories.

Jack, I kind of hope he's a troll just messing with us. To think someone is out there that is so consumed by the statist view - that restricting your actions which do not infringe on the rights of another, is for your own good - is frightening.

Joseph, my wife and I were having a conversation on the way into work this morning. Liberals, socialists, communists - statists - are unable to have a discussion or debate on a constitutional basis, because their core beliefs are 180 degrees away from the Constitution. They believe in the sanctity of the hive, Constitutionalists believe in the sanctity of the individual.

What they don't understand is that individuals will voluntarily form groups and associations. Statists want to tell you to which group you'll belong - and how you'll behave within that group.

Anonymous said...

Is there any food safety measure that is in the constitution? In 1984 in The Dalles Oregon the Rajneesh cult put Salmonella on the salad in a restaurant. Did they actually break a law? Show me in the constitution. It is a ludicrious to say that the people cannot insit the legislators pass laws to protect their food. In 1996 Odwalla fruit drinks poisoned and killed people (ironically with e. coli from cows) Would you say it didn't hurt them in the least to sell their products??? Did the people/government have the right to insist that food producers take scientifically correct steps to insure food products are not contaminated?? Ironically Odwalla now pasturizes their juices even though the word "pasturize" does not appear in the constitution.
Interestingly I am a strict constitutionalist who favors elimination all or most federal departments not required by their costitutional mandate.

To be honest I don't understand your fear or dislike of pasturization? I do understand how you might be unaware of the sickness and death the still happens around the world from the single source of unpasturized milk products.

To the gentleman who thinks returning to the death rates of the 17th century would be a good thing I can only assume you have no children and grandchildren. But there is good news for you; you can move to sub-Saharan Africa and live amongst the people who do experience death and disease that was common throughout the world before pasturization and other common sense food care.

Joseph said...

To be honest I don't understand your fear or dislike of pasturization?
Based on your calling me stupid without asking for supporting information it does not appear that you would like to know either, correct? If you would prefer to have a discussion and actually understand another person's opposing view you might want to rethink your approach next time.

Back to the general rights however you seem to confuse a few things in this discussion. Most of us indicate we want the government, which you state to agree with, to have a smaller role in our lives that supports our individual liberties, not some overzealous individuals who take it upon themselves to determine what is best for us. A direct farm to consumer raw milk relationship is much different than a commercial supply chain with multiple levels of failure. If a consumer wants to buy raw milk or a producer wants to sell raw milk directly to a consumer the government has zero right to interfere unless they think we're too stupid to decide for ourselves. Ask people to put a big warning label like cigarettes, fine. Millions of people have died from smoking but has that been outlawed? There are massive anti-smoking campaigns, warning stickers on cigarettes but people are allowed to continue that behavior, can you explain the difference?

You state your are a strict constitutionalist, please explain then at what point it is okay to violate my liberties. When it keep me supposedly more healthy? Does that seem logical to you? Why not make it a law that there cannot be fat people unless proven via blood tests? Which is better for the individual? Education or regulation/closure? Which supports people long term and creates a well-adjusted individual that can form their own critical thoughts?

MikeH. said...


There is a slight difference between the 17th century and the current. Folks in the 17th had no clue about "pass along" microbials from personal hygiene or products from sick animals. They also didn't know how to test for these problems. For that fact, many of these concepts weren't common knowledge during Pasteur's day.

There have been quite a few incidents recently where folks have become ill or died due to contaminated foods. In each case, the foods have come from big name corporations, not from small farms or food coops. In your perfect world way of thinking, there's no way this could or should happen.

Anon, I am very much convinced that your liberal education has left you ignorantly misguided and will keep you dependent upon the direction of others (ie. government) for your own good.

God help us if you find out we actually buy and eat non-pasteurized eggs.


suek said...

Heh. I started a search on what the regulations were for certified raw milk. Apparently there's some _major_ conflict out there on the harm/benefits of pasteurized/raw milk. Very active, very strong feelings on both sides. That is...there are those who are absolutely convinced that pasteurized milk is harmful to your health, and those who feel the same way about raw milk. I didn't search very long into either side, and didn't find the regulations/regulating body information either. Search for another day, I guess.

>>no, the statists don't want a reduction on the population>>

I understand - but disagree. Perhaps it's just a factor of the Statist movement that wants it - the environmentalists, to be specific. Let's fact it - if the Statists get their way, the population levels don't matter - yes they want 'proles', but they also want to perfect humans into _manageable_ proles. If they have to reduce the population in order to control it, no problem. 20-30 years and they'll have a whole new generation to work with. And they'll get to choose which desirable breeders to use to repopulate. You'll have to get a permit to reproduce. Etc.

>>To the gentleman who thinks returning to the death rates of the 17th century would be a good thing I can only assume you have no children and grandchildren.>>

a) I'm not a "gentleman".
b) I already have children and grandchildren
c) I expect to die, and I expect my children and grandchildren to die.
d) If we returned to the death rates of the 17th century, I'd probably have many more children and many more grandchildren to compensate. As terrible as we consider conditions of that period to be, somehow we have managed to triple/quadruple (I don't know exact numbers) the world's population since then.
In the sub-sahara, the death rate is due at least as much to warring conditions as it is to health issues. And we won't get into the muslim issue...

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Until Anon wants to do something and the Govt tells him he cant....FOR HIS OWN GOOD....nothing is going to change his mind...

Im done.... Good luck to you, Anon, when the Govt shows up at your door to tell you how to raise your kids, how to educate them, what to eat, what to wear, which doctor you have to go to, which car you must drive (if you get one) and where you must live...but dont worry, its all for the best...

Chief Instructor said...

Anon, you could not be further away from being a "strict constitutionalist". You say you're a "strict constitutionalist who favors elimination all or most federal departments not required by their costitutional mandate." yet you've STILL neglected to identify that mandate to restrict my ability to purchase raw milk.

It's because it does not exist.

I'm going to help you out:

Article 1, Section 8:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

If you really, REALLY wanted to stretch the meaning of that clause, you could argue that if it has to do with commerce BETWEEN the states, the feds can make up any damned laws they want. Every glass of milk could have to be taste-tested by some federal bureaucrat before it was sold.

BUT, if it's inside of the state, the tenth amendment forbids them from jurisdiction, because the Constitution did not grant them the powers. The mandate, if you will. Period.

Fear of pasteurization: No fear at all. In fact, I personally wouldn't drink un-pasteurized milk. That's not the point.

I also don't smoke pot, shoot heroin, or snort coke. The federal government has no mandate to restrict me from doing so, yet, somehow, we spend nearly $50 billion a year at the federal level making sure I don't do that.

Fifty billion unconstitutionally spent dollars.

If you think the feds should control what we put in our bodies, change the Constitution. Until that happens, the feds are in violation of the constitution.

Anonymous said...

The drug problem is bigger and more serious then you stated. estimates are that 80% or more of all small crime is committed by people using drugs who need money to buy drugs. That most murders are drug connected either committed by drug sellers killing a competitor or committed by drug addled criminals. And a large percentage of all auto accidents are directly related to drugs. This doesn't even count the huge negative impact of organized crime as aresult of the drug trade. So the question is do we the people have the right to pass laws making it illegal to use and sell certain harmful drugs. Are you saying we do not? Are you saying that the constitution forbids laws to protect citizens from crimes and criminals? I actually think that you are saying that and you believe that states alone have the right to control drugs. I assume you would also acknowledge that if each of the 50 states were to individually try to regulate and control harmful drugs that it would make a already monumental task much more difficult. So what should we do? Give up and legalize drugs? Some people do indeed advocate it. I can guarantee that if the stigma of hard drug use is removed all children will use drugs and drug deaths and pregnancy statistics will shot through the roof. Not to mention welfare costs and loss of productivity. I have never used illegal drugs and at my age it seems quite likely that at my age I never will. Drugs could be made legal tomorrow and I wouldn't go looking for crack or cocaine. But children and young adults would. Legalizing drugs (or the equivalent i.e. never having made them illegal) would be a disaster to our society. It would make our current economic and political problems pale by comparison.

suek said...

Boy. Just push the button.

S/He's a Constitutionalist alright. S/He believes in the "living" Constitution.

>>Are you saying that the constitution forbids laws to protect citizens from crimes and criminals?>>

There wouldn't be crimes or criminals if there weren't laws that prohibited whatever they're doing. What you're saying is that government is almighty and can impose whatever "laws" it desires and can declare as crimes whatever actions it chooses. Just like in the old days when we had a King.

If the majority of the people want to use drugs, should the government still make it a crime? In other words, what gives the government the right to make _any_ laws?