Skip to comments.Freedom of Choice on Food? Judge Says No!
Posted on 10/13/2011 3:21:14 AM PDT by scottfactor
Do you believe that you have the right to eat and drink what you choose? You may have another guess coming if the state and federal governments and the leftist puppet courts get their tyrannical way.
WorldNetDaily has long been on the forefront in covering the ongoing assault on our freedoms by the enemies within our government and other places of power. They have also extensively covered the war on raw milk. With all the despicable, unconstitutional garbage we have seen out of the Obama administration, this may seem like a trivial issue to some, but it actually speaks to the ever-growing police state which America has become. Under the Obama administration, the war on raw milk, natural dietary supplements and food choice in general has been ramped up, and last week a judge in Wisconsin issued a ruling basically telling Americans that we do not have the right to choose our own food.
I only wish I were kidding.
As WNDs Bob Unruh reported last Thursday,
A Wisconsin judge has 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.
The ruling comes from Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in a court battle involving a number of families who owned their own cows, but boarded them on a single farm.
The judge said the arrangement is a 'dairy farm' and, therefore, is subject to the rules and regulations of the state of Wisconsin.
'It's always a surprise when a judge says you don't have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice,' said Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which worked on the case on behalf of the farmers and the owners of the milk-producing cows.
The judge's original ruling came in a consolidation of two cases that presented similar situations: Cows being maintained and milked on farms for the benefit of non-resident owners. He refused to grant a summary judgment declaring such arrangements legitimate, deciding instead to favor the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, which opposed them.
'Plaintiffs argue that they have a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property and therefore have a fundamental right to own a cow, or a heard (sic) of cows, and to use their cow(s) in a manner that does not cause harm to third parties. They argue that they have a fundamental right to privacy to consume the food of their choice for themselves and their families and therefore have a fundamental right to consume unpasteurized milk from their cows,' the judge wrote.
Bunk, he concluded.
'They do not simply own a cow that they board at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. If plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin.'"
Here we have a judge doing some truth and logic contortions to label the plaintiffs operation a dairy farm. However, Mr. Kennedy from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees,
"Kennedy said the ruling is outlandish.
'Here you have a situation where a group of people, a couple of individuals, boarded their cows which they wholly owned, with Zinniker farms, and paid them a fee for the boarding.'
He continued, 'The judge said people have no fundamental right to acquire, possess and use your own property.'
The dispute is part of a larger battle going on between private interests and state and federal regulators over just exactly who makes the decision on the difference between a privately held asset and a commercial producer."
The essence of this battle, and numerous others like it, is private property rights and personal freedom. It is about our freedom to use our property as we see fit and to eat and drink what we choose.
State and federal officials are always using safety as an excuse to impose more and more burdensome, freedom-robbing regulations on American citizens. The area of raw dairy products is no exception. There are plenty of reasons to be very careful with raw dairy products, because under certain sloppy conditions they can make you sick. However, in a free country, free men should be left alone to choose whether or not they want to milk their cow and drink that milk and make dairy products with it. They should also be free to sell their milk and dairy products to people who desire raw dairyyou knowas people have done throughout history!
With this latest tyrannical ruling this judge has told us to stick our freedom in our pipe and smoke it.
As Mr. Unruh reported,
"Identifying the cases as the 'Grassway plaintiffs' and the 'Zinniker plaintiffs,' the judge said both were in violation of state rules and regulations.
It was, however, when the plaintiffs petitioned the judge for a 'clarification' of his order that he let fly his judicial temperament.
'The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which means the following:
'(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
'(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
'(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
'(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power;
'(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
'(6) no, the [Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection] did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs' conduct.'"
Where does this rogue judge get these unconstitutional ideas? How dare he make these claims? Well, he did dare, and this case is really just the tip of the food police iceberg.
In the same report, Mr. Unruh relates another case that WND has followed, this one a federal case in which the U.S. Department of Justice acting on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said the same thing this judge in Wisconsin said. This is yet another alarming refrain from the powers that be.
As Mr. Unruh wrote,
"Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit still pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no 'fundamental right' to obtain their food of choice.
The brief was filed early in 2010 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.
'There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds,' states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.
'Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish,' the government has argued."
This almost leaves me speechless. The audacity of these heavy-handed nannies in our state and federal governments and courts is breathtaking. We are clearly under siege by the communist tyrants in places of power in our nation, and it is apparent to me that they will not stop until they have central control over all aspects of our lives.
As for the bogus argument that the FDA is only concerned about safety, Mr. Unruh notes that the Weston Price Foundation reported that between 1980 and 2005 there were ten times as many illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk. People who are serious about raw dairy are also serious about proper procedures and safety, but this is not really about safety, and I do not doubt that large, commercial dairy companies have an interest in seeing raw dairy producers squashed.
In an excellent article by Daniel Sayani published this past June at the New American website, Mr. Sayani boils the issue down to its essence,
Whether one believes that raw milk is a toxic brew of pathogens ready to attack, or a natural, wholesome, and salubrious tonic does not constitute the crux of this debate. Rather, this is a fundamental debate about freedom, and whether individuals can retain their corporeal autonomy without governmental interference. John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government, argues that government exists to preserve the peoples right to life, liberty, and property, and the most fundamental 'property' a person can own is his own bodily self. The individual not the government is endowed with the right to make decisions about what to do with his own body. According to natural law theory, the government cannot inhibit the individuals right to consume whatever substances he wishes.
Attacking this fundamental truth through mass arrests of raw milk producers and consumers will accomplish nothing but the further erosion of the natural rights of American citizens, and will create an even broader chasm of disconnect between the people and their government.
I recommend you take a few moments to read Mr. Sayanis column, linked above.
As I said in the beginning of todays broadcast, some people may think this is a trivial issue, but that could not be further from the truth. It is no exaggeration to say that every single area of freedom in our lives is under constant assault by the communist enemies within our government and other positions of power. Now they are going full-bore after what we eat.
I know I sound like a broken record when I again say they must be stopped, but it is essential to our freedoms that these tyrannical maniacs are reined in and stripped of their power over us. That is why I tell you about things like this attack on raw milk, so that you can further investigate to gain more knowledge and the facts about what the crooks in power are trying to do to our freedoms. With knowledge comes power, and we need all the power we can get to fight these junior dictators.
Something should’ve happened when the federal government was trying to pass farming laws.
Why buy the cow if you can’t get the milk for free?
I prefer my milk cold, watery and flavorless (Not really.).
Especially with all the fat removed. Tastes kind of like thinned whitewash.
But the right to vacuum out the brains of an unborn baby is clear.
This country is unrecognizable.
Nope, didn’t see this one coming......It has a very solid foundation, supported by more than a few FReepers. If you don’t think so, just go on any “private property owners forced to ban tobacco” thread.....
Ping a ling
Blue John is what it’s called. Now, for the big news: http://www.indianagazette.com/b_news/article_7df6be10-4c1f-11e1-bf3d-0019bb2963f4.html
You won't hear about this in the New York Times or other Fascist pieces of fish wrap BECAUSE you have a private individual acting spontenously to minimize further harm.
Thanks for the link. I had to google ‘Blue John.’ I hadn’t heard of it before.
This term is undoubtedly VERY ANCIENT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.