Wisconsin judge goes further and rules that none of us—farmers or consumers—have the right to decide what we have for our own dinner. A state Action Alert!
Last week, Wisconsin judge Patrick J. Fiedler ruled against the property rights of cow owners and their right to consume raw milk from their own cows. Plaintiffs included Galyle Loiselle and Robert Karp, who boarded their cows at Mark and Petra Zinniker’s farm so that they could consume raw milk from them, and the Zinnikers. Here is what the judge said in his own words:
- Plaintiffs [Loiselle, Karp, and the Zinnikers] do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
- Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
- Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer; [and]
- Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.
It would certainly seem that the judge’s ruling violates constitutional rights to property, private contract, and bodily autonomy. After all, is there a more fundamental right than deciding what to eat? (Before this, we thought the FDA’s contempt for freedom of food choice was bad enough!)
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 21
As the jingle goes... "Good things grow-ow-ow in On-tar-i-o!"
Do I have that stuck in your head now? LOL
Here's what you need to do; squirt it directly into the mouth. (after you have washed the teet of course) Once you store it, it can start to become contaminated almost immediately.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
. . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That Judge is a traitor to the Constitution, I say. A renegade, a despot.
Individual rights are anathema to Communists. They cannot allow individuals to live according to their own principles or by their own devices. They must be subjects of the collective will and need. More to the point, government must have control of their lives. All done in the "name of the people" and for the "public good" of course.
Most of us still don't realize we are in the fight of our lives for the life of the US and every individual in it.
Who in my generation ever would have thought that after fighting two wars to prevent the spread of Communism to other, smaller countries, Americans in their self-absorbed gullibility have allowed much of the nation's educational, media, legal, political and economic systems to become dominated by Communists.
I really don't think we are up against Communists ultimately, which is to say people that actually want everyone to be in the same class. Rather, we are I believe, up against a small group of hyper-wealthy criminals, that have no intention whatsoever of joining us little people . .
By framing the matter as a fight against communists (or socialists), I believe you serve the desires of those criminals we actually are being accosted by, for several reasons. Chief among them; It allows millions of people to be deceived into thinking that this is class warfare, and many will be induced to take the side of the "poor" (some the side of the rich). Basically, it's a great recruitment tool which the real perps would very much like to see fought over, while they continue to gobble up control on many fronts.
If you say; Totalitarianism . . which is to say the rule of a very few over everyone else . . well, that's not something a lot of people are going to be anxious to join the cause of, I don't think . . Not a lot good propaganda images of the workers finally getting a fair shake pop into one's mind when discussing totalitarianism, it seems to me. Not a lot of union supporters going to get confused about whether helping this process along is good for the "proletariat" . . 'cause in totalitarian systems, proletariat is the same as slave, and not co-ruler . . Slave.
Now, I'm by no means saying I think that real live Communists are not involved in all this, not being made use of by those hyper-wealthy criminals, I have no doubt whatsoever that they are, and many of the tactics developed within the realm of that old ploy . . But it is a ploy, I feel, and there is no intention by those multi-billionaires pulling this off to "share" their wealth . . They aim to take all the other rich folks wealth and power, sure, but that's just robbery, not Communism.
And that's what I think we are seeing take place, more than a genuine attempt to bring about any sort of class justice or equity or clean environment or healthy kids . . That's a lotta crap, I say, spread by people that don't want you to say Totalitarians.
The President is a real live Communist who thinks he is using a few hyper-wealthy Capitalists like Jeffrey Imelt of GE to bring about Communist revolution by stealth from within government. American Communists have been talking up that strategy quietly among themselves for decades. Now, having stealthily gained control of much of our education, media, union leadership and government, they are finally in a position to implement it.
True Imelt thinks he is using Obama, probably to eventually gain a monopoly in his field of business. He could not do that if government had not been given the power to "regulate." Communists have favored more business regulation for decades, to hamstring Capitalism and bring the government towards economic supremacy.
It's the Communists who are most emphatically railing against the so-called criminal super-rich. Listen to Frances Fox Piven, Van Jones and Stephen Lerner. We have become less moral in business since the decline of Christian values, true. But criminals come from all economic levels and should be dealt with in our legal system as they appear. If we ended government regulation of business most if not all of them could be arrested and put away using the laws which remained, like we did in the 1800s.
Like it or not, Capitalism does allow the freedom to make a profit, even if in some opinions they are "obscene." They play off of supply and demand.
If you create a product which costs you a penny to make but a lot of people are willing to pay $20 plus $7.98 postage to get it, many people may think it is an "obscene" or "criminal" profit, but it is not against the law. If you want it to be against the law, that's Socialism.
Soros is a hyper-rich Capitalist who is simultaneously a Global Socialist advocate whose actions many might consider criminal for the negative effects they have had on the people of the countries whose currencies he has played games with. But is he solely to blame for the governments and many investors in those countries believing him when he uses his media influence for get them to take actions which causes the currency to be devalued and make him a lot of money? I'm not sure why he has not been arrested and why he is not in jail in Britain or Russia today, but apparently so far his actions have not been considered criminal enough to take him out of circulation.
"Small group of hyper-rich criminals" sounds a lot like what the American left thinks need to be reigned in by government power. i.e. more Socialism. That's their reason or excuse for more government power and less individual freedom. That's their reason, for example, for promoting "Net Neutrality" which we now understand is really intended to be used to squelch conservative free speech.
I cannot look into the private heart and mind of George Soros or Imelt or Buffett and say for sure what they eventually have in mind. But leaders of a revolution feel they will be in a position of greater power at the end, especially when the revolution such as a Communist one would give government total permanent control over the entire economy and all wealth.
Communist governments need lots of bureaucrats to execute the massive amount of ongoing redistribution which would be necessary for a large country like the US. Those people would have enormous and secure power.
We know that many hyper-rich people around the world believe they could become even richer if international economic restrictions were lifted. One World Government could achieve that. But such a government could not allow much individual freedom. Communism offers a way to justify their global supremacy were they to be part of that government or have its favor.
But whether the ultimate goal is Global Communism (what Marx referred to as International Socialism), or simply monopoly National Socialism within the confines of the USA, Captalism as we know it, and especially freedom as we know it, would disappear. That's the important thing, and we wouldn't know what form the new arrangement would take unless they win.
So who's using whom on the other side, and who will be the last megalomaniac standing if they win? In the end, will it really matter much to the average victim?
"But whether the ultimate goal is Global Communism (what Marx referred to as International Socialism), or simply monopoly National Socialism within the confines of the USA, Captalism as we know it, and especially freedom as we know it, would disappear. That's the important thing, and we wouldn't know what form the new arrangement would take unless they win."
Right, that's what I'm trying to say. Totalitarian government is the problem, since totalitarian governments can implement any form of totalitarianism they wish. They don't have to conform to the ideas that we happen to have about socialism or communism or fascism or corporatism, or anything else. But, those seeking to establish such a totalitarian government, would VERY MUCH like to frame the situation as class warfare, since that allows the perps to exploit those that see something like socialism (or communism) as a sort of hopeful thing. They can't see totalitarianism that way.
That's why I'm saying that "they" would LIKE you to frame the danger as socialism/communism, rather than as totalitarian government under the control of an "elite" few criminal megalomaniacs. That's what they WANT you to do.
But the thing is, most often they have not been told that the "altruistic" collectivism they have been taught is superior to "selfish" individualism is really Marxism, or that the implications of the power which government possesses in European Welfare National Socialism is just Nazism without the same racism or externally aggressive designs. So pointing out the ideological reality and the dangers in giving up individual rights for promises of security has merit. But you are right, that works only if they have been taught about the historic evils of Communism and Nazism and the demonstrated inadequacies of European Welfare National Socialism.