Sorry folks, it has been a couple of months since I posted here. I have been overly busy and have not had time to stay up on this blog as I should. That does not mean however that I am not paying attention and following the trends we are experiencing in America. A couple of posts back I gave you a link to an article about food pricing and I hope you read it and are paying close attention to what is happening. I am watching prices go up and up on most everything. Flour just jumped over $2.00 for 25 lbs, sugar is up, rice is really up, coffee is racing upward along with everything else. Of course, gasoline is a big part of price increases....as fuel is increasing, so are prices on the shelves.
Because our illustrious leader is hellbent on sending our fuel prices through the roof and has been keeping the drilling here in America at a standstill, we are now once again seeing an economy that was showing a small glimmer of hope make a complete U-turn and is headed back into the toilet again. It will stalemate any chance of things getting better because everyone will be spending their extra dollars on gasoline to be able to get to work and take care of their daily tasks. Yet it is a fact that the oil reserves under American soil are greater than all other nations combined and that is a hard cold fact!!
President OScrewU believes that everyone, except himself and his power hungry cronies, should cough up money to purchase a new fuel efficient vehicle that is wasting valuable resources (food) and costing more to operate than any gasoline vehicle on the road today. Regardless for most people, they either can't afford they high price tag or can't get a loan for because the hard times have destroyed their credit scores. Of course OScrewU would be just as happy that you take the bus or ride a bike to accomplish your everyday goals. Now as for OScrewU and his band of merry pillagers, they don't have to follow the rules they set down for us peasants. They don't even have to be on the mandated health care plan they have implemented, they don't have to worry about fuel efficient vehicles, they don't have to worry about where the next dollar will come from to get them from one day to the next because they are taking whatever they need from the American taxpayer and telling each and every one of us to go straight to hell if we don't like it.
I posted back in August of last year percentages that other countries are being taxed, I hope you all read it. 61% to 83% in total taxes, the results of socialistic government taking everything you earn and giving you nothing in return. Frankly, I am not interested in working for the government, giving them everything I have and allowing them to dictate to me what I can and cannot do.
OScrewU introduced a bill that you were told about in the last post I entered here on the blog back in December called S-510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. On Sunday, December 19, the text of S. 510 replaced the original text of H.R. 2751, and the bill passed by voice vote. H.R. 2751, originally the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, passed the House in June 2009 and was a "vehicle" for the passage of S. 510 in a House-originating bill because S. 510 was a revenue-raising bill. All revenue-raising bills must originate in the House.
Here's how it went down:
Passed House Jun 9, 2009
Passed Senate Dec 19, 2010
Signed by President Jan 4, 2011
This bill became law. It was signed by Barack (I'm a jackass) Obama and became Public Law No: 111-353. Just so you understand my irritation here, this is the genuinely a vehicle the government can use to stop people from even growing their own food in their own gardens in their own friggen backyards!
Big Government always wants to get bigger. It always wants more power. More authority. More funding. More excuses to function as a dictatorship that rules over the American people.
Utah state Rep. Bill Wright is proposing H.B.249 a bill that would exempt his state from federal food regulations, including the recently enacted food safety bill, S-510, if the food is not sold across state lines. Within the state, it is state's rights, and Utah already has regulations over those items. Wright's bill is modeled after a Montana gun law that Utah adopted last year, which "built on the premise that if the product doesn't cross state borders, the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce shouldn't apply and there is no constitutional right to federal regulation."
Here is the bill as it is proposed, the rest of the nation had better wake up and see this for what it is Second Substitute H.B. 249
Representative Bill Wright proposes the following substitute bill:
1 GROWING OF FOOD
2 2011 GENERAL SESSION
3 STATE OF UTAH
4 Chief Sponsor: Christopher N. Herrod
5 Senate Sponsor: Stephen H. Urquhart
6
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill recognizes the right of an individual to grow food for personal use of the
10 individual and the individuals family, without being subject to local, state, or federal 11 regulation.
12 Highlighted Provisions:
13 This bill:
14 recognizes the right of an individual to grow food for personal use of the individual
15 and the individuals family, on the individuals property, without being subject to
16 local, state, or federal regulation; and
17 unless the food poses a risk to health, a risk of spreading insect infestation, a risk of
18 spreading agricultural disease, or is unlawfully possessed, prohibits governmental 19 confiscation of food grown for individual or family use, or food stored in an
20 individuals dwelling.
21 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
22 None
23 Other Special Clauses:
24 None
25 Utah Code Sections Affected:
26 ENACTS:
27 4-1-9, Utah Code Annotated 1953
28
29 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
30 Section 1. Section 4-1-9 is enacted to read:
31 4-1-9. Growing food for personal use.
32 (1) The state recognizes the right of an individual, without federal intervention, to grow
33 food for personal use by the individual or a member of the individuals family, on the
34 individuals property, without being subject to local, state, or federal laws, ordinances, or rules,
35 if the food:
36 (a) is legal for human consumption;
37 (b) is lawfully possessed;
38 (c) does not pose a health risk;
39 (d) does not negatively impact the rights of adjoining property owners; and
40 (e) complies with the food safety requirements of this title.
41 (2) A government entity may not confiscate food grown in accordance with this 42 section, or food stored in an individuals home or dwelling, that is legal for human consumption
43 and is lawfully possessed, unless the food poses a risk:
44 (a) to health;
45 (b) of spreading insect infestation; or
46 (c) of spreading agricultural disease.Legislative Review Note as of 3-3-11 6:10 PMAs required by legislative rules and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill. The note is based on an analysis of relevant state and federal constitutional law as applied to the bill. The note is not written for the purpose of influencing whether the bill should become law, but is written to provide information relevant to the legislators' consideration of this bill. The note is not a substitute for the judgment of the judiciary, which has authority to determine the constitutionality of a law in the context of a specific case.
This legislation recognizes the right of an individual to grow and store food for the personal
use of the individual and the individuals family without being subject to local, state, or federal laws, ordinances, or rules. Furthermore, it provides that a government entity, not excluding Federal government entity, may confiscate that food only under certain circumstances. Even if this legislation is interpreted to be limited to wholly intrastate conduct, the United States Supreme Court has held that the United States Congress has broad power to regulate purely intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Gonzales v.Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 18 (2005) (“Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity . . . if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Moreover, even if the growing and storing of food described in this bill is not considered commercial activity, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate intrastate activity if it substantially affects interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 559 (1995). Indeed, the regulation of agricultural commodities is a fundamental example of what Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942) (holding that Congress may regulate wholly intrastate conduct_even the growing of wheat for consumption only by the grower_if “it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”). Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution declares the laws of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean, for example, that a federal regulation properly adopted under federal law preempts state law that conflicts with the federal regulation. Fry v. United States,421 U.S. 542, 547-48 (1975). Based on this authority, there is a high probability that a court would find that this legislation unconstitutional in that it violates the Supremacy Clause by limiting the permissible exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
....Once Government controls the food, they control the people, plain and simple. Hitler took control of all food sources, once he accomplished this, the rest was easy. Sleep on that tonight!
No comments:
Post a Comment