Question: Does the USDA have the same legal trickery as the FDA?
Vilsack is now announcing listening sessions on NAIS. But the FDA hasn't heard anyone on GMO's.
This may be why:
Under Christine Lewis Taylor's supervision
[her husband, Michael Taylor is a Monsanto executive and lawyer waiting to run the entire US food supply from inside the White House], Albert's thesis defends the FDA's controversial labeling decision and its consultation processes with the public as being "conducted as intended by law."
Albert claims that members of the public who are dissatisfied with the FDA's decision not to label GMO products just don't understand the all the factors that go into making decisions at the FDA. She's probably correct on that point: Most of the public is under the mistaken assumption that the FDA has a responsibility to protect it from the unsafe products of an untested technology. Thanks to her explanation, at least we now know that certain employees of the FDA consider their only legal obligation is to offer the public an opportunity to voice its concerns, not act upon them.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-2009-Food-Safety-Bil-by-Nicole-Johnson-090418-680.html
http://farmwars.info/?p=594
Which leads to this Question:
Does the USDA use the same legal trickery as the FDA?
[Answers below are all from independent cattlemen and farmers]:
1. "Yes"
"Listening sessions are a nice break from DC, maybe a chance to try a few new restaurants."
2. This is the trick they use on the public to control debate---it is time we learned the same methods in their public meetings.
ES
HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM by G. Edward Griffin
In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority, especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority.
Here is the strategy:
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.
2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.
3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.
4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their own tightly held organizations. It works.
The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: "I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?" If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but the tactic will be defused.
3. USDA Trickery - A good listening session or hearing requires preparation
The trick to listening sessions is to have a strategy in place prior to beginning any, and to structure the sessions in such a way that the predetermined outcome is reached. One way they do that is to have testifiers lined up beforehand so that no matter who else is there, the record shows that people supported the main agenda.
A few years back the Governor of Missouri called for a statewide conference on agriculture consisting of listening sessions all over the state. I went to one, and when I got there a large number of people were pre-registered and were called to the front of the room to testify first. They were all there to represent special interests, and they received 'special' recognition from the appointed panel of "experts". Everyone was limited to 3 minutes to make their opening statement plus an opportunity to answer questions from the panel.
They had an official timekeeper so that no one talked too long.
He was a 'special' appointee.
In his regular 9 to 5 job he was a vice-president for Monsanto.
They don't call us the great state of Monsanto for nothin'. RO
For example, see the following line up – Purely big agribusiness and their advocates and spokesmen [Not one farmer or rancher]:
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Public Hearing To review Federal food safety systems at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Thursday, April 23, 2009
1:00 p.m.
1300 Longworth House Office Building
Panel I
Mr. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Panel II
Mr. J. Patrick Boyle, President and CEO, American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C.
Dr. James "Bo" Reagan, Senior Vice President, Research, Education and Innovation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Jill Appell, pork producer, Appell's Pork Farms, Inc., Past President, National Pork Producers Council, Altona, Illinois
Dr. Elizabeth A. Kushinskie, Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, Mountaire Farms, Inc., on behalf of the National Chicken Council, Millsboro, Deleware
Dr. Michael Rybolt, Director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, National Turkey Federation, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Elliot P. Gibber, President, Deb-El Foods, on behalf of United Egg Association Further Processors Division, Elizabeth, New Jersey
Mr. Barry L. Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer, National Meat Association, Oakland, California
"We reject all forms of food dictatorship. We oppose all deceptive attempts
to industrialize the food supply under the guise of "food safety." Current bills
before Congress such as HR875, S425, HR759, etc., lack any producer protective
language patterned after Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USCsec 203(s)(2)and DSHEA protective language of the 2007 FDA act, Section 1011.
They are therefore unacceptable to the members of a free society and must be
defeated. Government or corporate entities shall not infringe on a citizen's land, their right to own, produce, sell, or use food, seeds or healing substances ... , nor shall any threat of war, emergency, or disease be used to abrogate or limit these rights.""
Urgent 3-Part Action Item:
Step 2: Call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 and the comment center 202-456-1111. Let's keep those phones ringing!
Step 3: Click here to tell Congress "NO!" to all of the fake food "safety" bills. They provide neither real, wholesome food nor safety:
No comments:
Post a Comment