WND EXCLUSIVE

Food rights activists schedule rally in support of Hershberger

Published: 1 day ago

Bob Unruh

The long-delayed trial for a Wisconsin farmer accused of selling milk is scheduled to begin soon amid the protests of supporters who believe authorities are stepping over the line.

The Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Trade and Consumer Protection has charged Vernon Hershberger with selling milk without a retail license.

His argument? He was only providing food products to paid members in a private buying club that should not fall under the state’s commercial retail regulations.

The trial originally was scheduled for last year.

Now, activists plan to meet May 20 in Baraboo, Wis., to support Hershberger, who is to face the beginning of a trial that day on four criminal misdemeanors that carry the  penalty of up to 30 months in jail with fines of more than $10,000.

Find out how to reclaim your health!

State officials allege he was running a retail food establishment without a license.

“There is more at stake here than just a farmer and his few customers,” said Hershberger, “This is about the fundamental right of farmers and consumers to engage in peaceful, private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight.”

Last year, food-rights activists from around the country stood in support of Hershberger at a pre-trial hearing. They read and signed a “Declaration of Food Independence” that asserts inherent rights in food choice.

After court proceedings each day during the trial, activists and others will gather at the Al Ringling Theater across the street from the courthouse and hear presentations by leaders in the food-rights movement. Notable speakers include Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, Mountain Man show star Eustace Conway and Maine food-rights organizer Deborah Evans.

Hershberger, like several others around the country, is facing charges for providing fresh foods to customers. In recent months the Food and Drug Administration  has conducted several undercover sting operations and raids against farmers and buying clubs that have resulted in farms shutting down and consumers without access to the food they depend on.

WND has reported on the dispute that has swept across the country.

The Farm to Consumers Legal Defense Fund said the case already has created ripples across the industry.

In Wisconsin, while the state Department of Agriculture “once supported farmers who offered raw dairy through direct-to-consumer sales,” the state agency has reversed its position under pressure from the FDA.

When the state legislature tried to block the newly developing crackdown on farmers who provide their products directly to consumers, the governor vetoed the proposal.

In the case, the state of Wisconsin is arguing it can regulate when consumers gain access to such products through private deals.

Pete Kennedy in a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund commentary on the case wrote that the evidence will show that Hershberger had private contractual arrangements with the purchasers to provide the food.

“If Hershberger is convicted of the charges against him, it could have a chilling effect on consumer access to raw milk for those who don’t own and board their own cows. The farmer currently is leasing his cows to the Right to Choose Healthy Food Buyers Club,” he said earlier as the case was beginning to develop.

Kennedy noted that in a similar argument, a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled that “owners of cows boarded at the Zinniker farm in Elkhorn could not legally obtain raw milk produced by their own cows at the farm.”

WND previously reported when the Weston A. Price Foundation criticized a federal study about outbreaks of illness blamed on raw milk. The Centers for Disease Control report said outbreaks because of raw milk were 150 times greater than outbreaks attributed to pasteurized milk, citing statistics from a 13-year period ending in 2006.

But the Price Foundation said the results were skewed because of the way federal report authors “cherry picked” data.

Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, said the study listed an average of 315 illnesses a year “from all dairy products for which the pasteurization status was known.”

“Of those, there was an average of 112 illnesses each year attributed to all raw dairy products and 203 associated with pasteurized dairy products,” she said of the study period ending in 2006.

“The CDC’s data shows that there were significant outbreaks of foodborne illness linked to pasteurized dairy products the very next year, in 2007: 135 people became ill from pasteurized cheese contaminated with e.coli, and three people died from pasteurized milk contaminated with listeria,” the Price Foundation report said.

And shortly before the time frame for the study, there were 16,000 confirmed cases of Salmonella traced to pasteurized milk from a single dairy, the foundation reported.

The foundation suggested that the time frame was picked by government reporters to portray raw milk in a negative light.

It was in another case that the judge ruled that Americans simply do not have a right to choose their food, not even when they own the cows and the milk.

The judge decided in a fight over families’ access to milk from cows they own that Americans “do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.”

Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler said the families who reported they were boarding their cows for a fee and then getting the milk instead were running a “dairy farm.”

“It’s always a surprise when a judge says you don’t have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice,” said Kennedy.

The judge wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/farmer-heads-to-trial-for-selling-milk/

By Ron Ewart
May 7, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

“There is no week, day, or hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.” —Walt Whitman

Back in 2004, we were involved, with several other rural landowners, in opposing a particularly onerous proposed environmental ordinance in our county. We gave testimony at several public hearings and we organized quite a few public protests at which several dozen landowners turned out. We even got some of the local media to attend our protests. We also wrote many guest editorials and letters to the editors outlining our objections. In spite of a fairly significant turnout by the effected rural landowners, the Democrats on the county council, that held the majority, passed the ordinance into law literally in the dead of night, in spite of vociferous opposition and over 100 amendments put forth by the Republicans.

The county council at the time consisted of thirteen members, 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Two of those Republicans represented the rural areas of the county ….. only two. The rest of the council members were elected by the urban population and held an urban mindset when it came to zoning, the environment and land use issues. In effect, the rural landowners of the county were disenfranchised from any political outcome. They had to “eat” whatever the urban representatives dished out to them. The upshot was that rural landowners were being forced to bear almost the entire burden of environmental protection, while their city brethren got off virtually scot-free.

We debated an environmentalist on a radio show at one time during the debate over the ordinance and he kept saying that: “we have to protect OUR rural lands.” On three occasions during the show we had to remind him that the rural lands did not belong to him or anyone else in the big city. Rural lands belong to real people who paid for their land and worked their land and those landowners have constitutional rights.

Upon further investigation we found that these kinds of ordinances were being inflicted on rural landowners all over America, mostly driven by the United Nations Agenda 21 policies of so-called sustainable development, livable communities, public transportation and smart growth. It was at that moment in late 2005, having over 30 years experience in land use issues, we decided to form the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) to act as an advocate for the rights and interests of rural landowners everywhere. To that end we established a website that provides relevant information to all American rural landowners, along with some tools that rural landowners can use to protect their rights and interests.

As the organization became more widely known, we started receiving calls and e-mails from rural landowners from all over America about how they were being affected by zoning, land use, eminent domain abuse, environmental protection and endangered species laws. Some of their stories were horrific. Many lost their life’s saving fighting either the local, state, or the federal government. Some lost their property and ended up penniless and on the street. Still others ended up in jail. Many, still in the throws of the fight with government, asked for our help. Some we could help. Others we could not because their fight had gone past the point of a reasonable resolution.

MORE:

 http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron100.htm

Living With Wolves: The Cost for Ranchers

By Mark Holyoak/KPAX

Idaho for Wildlife.com

 http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Living%20with%20wolves-%20the%20cost%20for%20ranchers.html

Posted: Feb 15, 2010 7:08 PM
Updated: Feb 17, 2010 6:02 PM

As  wolves spread across the Montana landscape, ranchers find themselves  looking over their shoulder to protect their animals and their  livelihood.

Last year alone, there were at least 367 confirmed wolf kills of livestock – and there are at least six so far this year.

But for long-time cattleman Ron Skinner near Drummond, the cost of wolves runs much deeper than an occasional cow carcass.

It’s  auction day on Ron Skinner’s ranch in Hall, where fellow ranchers  bought 174 of his cattle, but it’s the money that got away that really  hurts.

Skinner  explained, “”We had severe weight loss in calves that came out of wolf  areas compared to calves where there are no wolves.”

Those  heifer calves were an average of 97 pounds lighter than others. With  the going rate of beef at 93 cents per pound – that’s a $90.21 loss per  animal. Multiplied by 150, that’s a loss of $13,531.

A more  visually disturbing loss is wolf depredation, with Skinner noting, “I’m  a purebred breeder.  This was an embryo transplant heifer and she was  worth a lot of money and we don’t know what she would produce in her  lifetime, but the compensation wasn’t even close.”

On a  nearby mountain, we come across a still-warm elk carcass–tangible  evidence of perhaps Skinner’s greatest problem. Skinner said, “The  environmental damages and range management damages are worse than  depredation.”

Skinner leases this land to graze his cattle, but  he’s not getting anywhere near his money’s worth from it because wolves  continually push the cattle off the grassy slopes, away from the feed,  and back into over-grazed riparian areas below, forcing him to buy 200  extra tons of hay this year.

Skinner says there are many other  wolf-related effects on ranchers such as stress, which can lead to  lower pregnancy rates and young cattle that don’t grade as high, extra  manpower to monitor wolf activity, injury to livestock, damage to  fences and danger to humans – like when wolves showed up in his corrals  right next to his house driving the black bulls through the fence onto  the highway at night.

“The first thing I did was get on the road  with my flashers so somebody didn’t get killed and it will eventually  happen,” Skinner remarked.

Despite the constant threat  of wolves, Skinner carries on as a third-generation Montana rancher  with a wary eye on the future.

Skinner said, “The  real question is, do you want ranchers to produce food for you?  If we  go through the economic pressures of wolves, some ranchers won’t  survive.”

The Willow Creek wolf pack preyed on sheep and cattle  belonging to Hall ranchers in 2008, so wildlife officials removed its  15 members. But three new wolves returned this past summer, killing  another calf and a heifer.

Tomorrow in our “Living with Wolves” series, we’ll look at how wildlife managers track and manage Montana’s wolves.

Related Articles

• Living With Wolves: Timeline of Wolves in Montana

IN THE NEWS

 Liberty Scene

Liberty and Property Rights Coalition

EPA’s Secret Deals with Environmentalists

The EPA is under investigation for a practice called Sue and Settle. Environmentalists in government and private organizations have found ways to create new regulations by fashioning lawsuits tailored to have courts institute policy changes. Both parties involved in the lawsuits secretly decide in advance what the outcome will be and how much taxpayer money will be transferred to the environmental group in the settlement. In other words, they are exploiting the courts to change laws, and in the process, helping to fund radical environmental groups without legislative or taxpayer consent. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been given to these groups.

(You Tube)

Pacific Legal Foundation asks Supreme Court to Protect Western Water Rights

Recently, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the estates of Nevada ranchers, E. Wayne and Jane Hage. The Hages, and their children, have been fighting for over twenty years to preserve their water rights from federal agencies.

Water rights, like those owned by the Hages, are essential to ranching and other natural resource industries throughout the western United States. In their case, a federal agency interfered with the Hages’ rights to access and maintain the flow of water to their ranch. The U.S. Claims Court determined that the agency’s actions resulted in physical and regulatory takings of their water rights. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s conclusion without addressing the merits of their claims. The court held that the Hages’ case—which arose nearly a quarter century ago—is premature!

(Pacific Legal Foundation)

Is Corporate Funding of Environmental Groups a Form of Hush Money and Necessary Cost of Business?

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – The Sierra Club, a group with a documented history of shilling for cash accused via Twitter this morning the oil and gas lobby of buying support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Sierra Club took a shot at the American Petroleum Institute, a pro-oil and gas development group, with this tweet: (See article)

(Watchdog.org)

A New Spotted Owl?

The western sage grouse is just the latest in the long list of endangered species which have been successfully used by their environmental proponents as economic weapons of destruction in the West.  After the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species in the 1990’s the western timber industry was eradicated from our nation’s forests, leaving the timber to rot from disease and be consumed by catastrophic fires.

Thirty Clark County, Nevada ranchers went broke as a result of the ESA listing of the desert tortoise.  Tortoise eggs were determined to be in danger of cows stepping on them.  Despite the fact that cattle, sheep and tortoises had cohabitated in the southern Nevada desert for more than a century, ranchers were forced to abandon their vested water rights and forage rights for the tortoise.  Once the lands were cleared of ranchers then Nevada BLM Chief, Bob Abby pursued a public land selling spree to Las Vegas developers armed with excavators and paving equipment.  (Emails Link Former Chief of the BLM’s Ex BLM Chief Bob Abbey to Henderson, NV Land Scandal) Environmentalists and bureaucrats were suddenly mute on the subject of the desert tortoise.

History shows that endangered species listings have less to do with saving the lives of animals and more to do with taking property and water rights by circumventing that pesky provision in the Constitution—just compensation.  See this special report in Range Magazine about the new spotted owl, “The Sage Grouse”.

(Range Magazine)

Ron Arnold: A Journalism Nonprofit’s Nonagenda Agenda

Among the standout names of outfits recently whacking the Donors Trust is the nonprofit investigative journalism organization known as the Center for Public Integrity. To many, the group’s name seems presumptuous and agenda-laden, despite its insistence that it is “nonpartisan and does no advocacy work.”

(Washington Examiner)

The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.

For more information or to be removed from this list email rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net.

A service of Liberty and Property Rights Coalition 2013

PNP comment: Too bad, cuz the wolf-lovers should have the wolves living in their front yards. — Editor Liz Bowen

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-Wolf-meeting-recap-020613-art?utm_sou

Matthew Weaver/Capital Press

Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field provides an update on state wolf legislation as Colville, Wash., rancher Jeff Dawson looks on. Field and Dawson spoke during a seminar at the Spokane Ag Expo and Pacific Northwest Farm Forum Feb. 6 in Spokane.

Matthew Weaver/Capital Press

February 6, 2013

Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field provides an update on state wolf legislation as Colville, Wash., rancher Jeff Dawson looks on. Field and Dawson spoke during a seminar at the Spokane Ag Expo and Pacific Northwest Farm Forum Feb. 6 in Spokane.

By MATTHEW WEAVER

Capital Press

An Eastern Washington lawmaker’s bill to relocate wolves near supporters on the west side of the state has died in committee, a cattle industry leader says.

But Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field said the industry will remain vigilant on other proposals as they go before state House of Representatives and Senate committees.

Wauconda, Wash., Rep. Joel Kretz’s bill was pulled by House leadership because it was “unfavorable,” Field said. But he said the bill was the subject of much conversation on both sides of the issue.

Other bills in the state legislature include:

* House Bill 1191 relates to protection of livestock against predator attacks, requiring the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish rules authorizing livestock owners or managers to kill a predator.

* House Bill 1219 gives big game status to wolves and corrects livestock depredation compensations.

* House Bill 1337, another bill by Kretz, prohibits the state from giving a different level of wildlife protection than the federal government.

* House Bill 1500 focuses on funding mechanisms and creating an account for preventative and compensation measures.

“Any one of those House bills could pass and we’d could all say we did something good for the (state’s) wolf plan,” Field said.

Senate Bill 5300, by Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, would mandate any operator on public lands to obtain a cooperative agreement with the state on handling wolves. Ranker has criticized the department for killing wolves in the Wedge Wolf Pack after the wolves had preyed on livestock.

“The problem is that it totally takes the voluntary spirit of an agreement and flushes it out the window if it says you have to do this,” Field said. “(Ranker) wants to see more done in terms of the livestock community and grazing on public lands to ensure we’re doing everything possible non-lethally to prevent wolf impacts or mitigate conflict.”

Field said bills allowing proactive lethal take of wolves are not likely to move out of committee.

Field and other industry members provided an update on the wolf impact to livestock producers at the Spokane Ag Expo and Pacific Northwest Farm Forum.

Rancher Jeff Dawson said the state paid roughly $22,000 to fund a pilot range rider program for seven months on his operation, working out to about $17.75 per head on his ranch.

Dawson said he paid about $6,000 toward the program.

The program increased weaning rates back to the point they were before wolves started preying on his cattle, Dawson said.

Dawson said he would not be able to afford the total cost of the program.

“I don’t feel the burden should fall on the livestock producer to pay that,” he said.

Field said the pilot program is good because it gives the public the opportunity to share the economic burden of endangered species recovery.

“Right now you’ve got an undue economic hardship being felt on stakeholders directly impacted,” Field said. “Everybody making a living off the land is having a direct negative impact.”

Dawson encouraged farmers to maintain good documentation on everything, and maintain the paperwork with partnering agencies in case the need arises to defend it in court.

He said wolf supporters are hiring people this summer to assess allotments where wolves were removed to try to find other problems.

“Their assessment is going to be based on water quality, forage analysis,” Dawson said. “Everything you think of in the book is going to be thrown at that assessment. It’s going to be seeing if you have met the standards you are mandated to meet.”

PNP comment: Whoever made this report clearly wrote it up, just like Jeff Barnard continues to spin everything for the Greenies in his articles. Oops, I should have known that Dennis Lynch of USGS had his fingerprints all over it. He sat and lied to us during the EIS/EIR meeting Oct. 20, 2011 at the Siskiyou Fairgrounds. Three-quarters of the public testifying were against dam removal — most for very specific reasons.

The science used in favor of dam removal is fraudulent. They only put in the parts that support dam removal. Mark Stopher, of CA. DFG, on April 1, 2010 admitted that the years it will take to destroy and remove the huge dams will affect salmon runs. WHAT? It is OK for the government to kill salmon, but if the public does there are huge fines. Oh, wait a minute, we can prove the government is culprit of killing young salmon at the fish hatchery. — Editor Liz Bowen

P.S. I believe “they” are trying to put pressure on Congress to cough up the millions of dollars for dam removal. Hopefully, the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the line. Mostly, because there have now been eight scientists fired or chastized for questioning how the science is being used and blantant statements by DOI Sec. Ken Salazar.

P.S.S. Also we customers of PacifiCorp are already paying for the company’s cost of dam removal. Yep, we are and we have fought it at the California PUC (commission) level to NO avail. The CPUC only added a second surcharge to our bill. Yep, I’ve got bills to prove it. 

Oh, and the 2002 salmon die-off was manipulated by the government, which pulsed the water from Trinity dam beinging chinook salmon up the Klamath River early during the heat and drought of August.

I, and others, also claim they poisoned the water in the Yurok stretch of land where the slamon died. Asneye-witnesses got there within 12 hours and saw that ALL the fish and critters were dead. Also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t get there until 8 days later (they were an hour or so drive from their Eureka office) but when they got there, they only kept one fish for an autopsy? Shockingly, inept!

This whole thing stinks and the blame is always pointed upland to farmers in Scott and Shasta Valleys. I think they want our land. – Editor Liz Bowen

By JEFF BARNARD     AP Environmental Writer

Posted:   02/04/2013 11:46:28 AM PST

Updated:   02/04/2013 04:38:40 PM PST

 Mercury News.com

Siskiyou court ruling bolsters water rights

http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=4984

 Capital Press

Issue Date: January 9, 2013

By Steve Adler

 (PHOTO)

Rex Houghton stands at a headgate on the Little Shasta River. A lawsuit established that Houghton and other farmers in the region do not need a permit from state fish and wildlife officials to irrigate their crops.
Photo/Kathy Coatney

In an important decision that protects private water rights while maintaining environmental protections, a Siskiyou County Superior Court judge has ruled that a state agency overstepped its authority in trying to regulate farmers’ water use.

The decision by Judge Karen L. Dixon determined that the California Department of Fish and Game had exceeded its authority by requiring farmers and ranchers to obtain a permit from DFG—called a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement or “1600 permit”—before they irrigate their crops. In 2011, the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau filed suit against DFG—which became known as the Department of Fish and Wildlife this month—on behalf of members who farm along the Scott and Shasta rivers.

“This ruling establishes an important, statewide precedent,” Siskiyou County Farm Bureau President Jeff Fowle said. “There is no doubt that if the department had been able to expand its authority here, it would have tried to regulate water rights elsewhere in the state. This decision reaffirms that water rights are administered solely by the courts and State Water Resources Control Board. Now, we can turn our attention to finding collaborative ways to improve conditions for fish while maintaining the sustainability of our farms and ranches.”

Fowle said farmers and ranchers in Siskiyou County were very pleased with the judge’s decision and that it is now time to move forward in addressing natural resource issues.

“We would like to get away from the whole idea of agencies managing problems into perpetuity and begin actually solving problems to the benefit of all involved,” he said.

The case centered on Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, which requires individuals to notify the state agency and potentially obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement before conducting certain activities that alter a streambed. Permits have been required under the section for gravel mining, construction of push-up dams, replacing infrastructure and other projects that physically alter streambeds—but DFG began notifying landowners along the Scott and Shasta that they would need to obtain permits simply to open an existing headgate or activate an existing pump in order to irrigate their crops.

In her decision, Judge Dixon determined that the state Legislature “did not intend to include the act of diverting water to a water right to be within the regulatory scope of Section 1602.”

Dixon wrote that had the state agency prevailed, it would have had an economic impact on water rights holders that would have been disproportionate to others within the scope of the statute.

“The economic impact would reasonably be severe to the point that it would jeopardize the continued existence of the small agricultural water rights holder,” she wrote. “Surely the Legislature did not intend such outcomes. The effect on the agricultural industry in California could be devastating and, in turn, the resultant loss to the state economy would be disastrous.”

The judge also ruled that the defendants must pay court costs and the plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

In its lawsuit, the county Farm Bureau said the requirement would have been a “fundamental change” in the application of the code that would have jeopardized both water rights and property rights for farmers and ranchers.

“We understand that the department wants to protect salmon in the rivers, but it has many other ways to do that already,” said Rex Houghton, the immediate past president of the county Farm Bureau. “Farmers will continue to work collaboratively with the agency to improve conditions for fish. The outcome does not change the notification requirement for activity that physically alters a streambed, but it is important to establish that the department can’t require a permit for farmers simply to exercise their water rights.”

Like Fowle, Houghton said he hopes that everyone involved can “all sit down at the table and work through some of the issues that need to be addressed so we can quit using all of our resources to defend ourselves from their next plan of what they think is best for us.”

Houghton said the ruling should send a clear message to the agencies that “California agriculture will stand together and fight an issue that is going to affect the whole state. Everyone supported us up and down the state and I’d like to thank everyone for that.”

Because of the statewide implications of the case, the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau received support for the lawsuit from the California Farm Bureau Federation and county Farm Bureaus throughout the state. Attorney Darrin Mercier of Yreka, who is also a rancher in the Shasta Valley, argued the case on behalf of the county Farm Bureau.

Jack Rice, CFBF environmental and natural resources counsel, said it is important to understand the scope of the decision.

“It does mean that water users do not need to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to exercising their water right. But the department must still be notified of any activity that substantially alters a streambed, bank or channel, even if that alteration is needed in order to exercise your water right,” he said.

Rice emphasized that in addition to being an important decision that reaffirms water rights and how they are administered, the decision also opens the door to finding new ways to cooperate to improve conditions for farmers, ranchers and fish.

“Farm Bureau recognizes this opportunity and is committed to supporting its members in working with the agencies and other stakeholders to find solutions that are not focused on conflict,” he said.

(Steve Adler is associate editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at sadler@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.

Call Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and protest this anti-American action.

See attached email and listen to the YouTube (about 20 minutes).  This is so disgraceful and anti-American.  American Patriots must not remain quiet about this.  Agenda 21 – “Sustainable Development” along with the gang of thugs in D.C. are destroying the United States of America.

If not you and me then who?   If not now, then when?  When will Americans standup for their rights and oppose this tyrannical government?

Here is the contact information for the Governor of Michigan – Rick Snyder.

http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869–,00.html

From:
Sally Baptiste
www.AmericanStatesman.org
www.blogtalkradio.com/americanstatesman

 Wild pigs are not allowed!

Subject: Another example of Agenda 21 being implemented

Bakers Green Acres farm (MI) is still under attack.

There are about 5 farmers left.

All the others killed their pigs and folded up their tent. They had no choice.

PLEASE share this you tube and donate to help Mr. Baker. We did an all out donation and support campaign for him last year and now he is faced with losing his farm again. I was told he is $30K in debt. Share with everyone you know. This IS Agenda 21. They must destroy all the farmers. Livestock is unsustainable.

 Video was made on Dec. 23, 2012 by Mr. Baker. Government is destroying his hog business. He has 200 hogs costing $2 a day to feed.

Worth the listen! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPVfduwUx-g