Multi-agency armed raid hits Rawesome Foods, Healthy Family Farms for selling raw milk and cheese

reply to post by newcovenant

I got this email. What do you think? Concerning this milk and many related issues.

The 26th amendment -granting the vote to 18 year-olds - took only 3 months

BAD IDEA!!!!

What the general population forgets is once a Constitutional Convention is called "They" can REWRITE the ENTIRE blasted CONSTITUTION!!!!!

The last thing we want is the globalists to get their hands on our Constitution and rewrite it into a mishmash of the United Nations " Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and "Our Global Neighborhood" and "the Millennium Summit" with the US as a satellite state of a Global Government.

.....This past week, the Millennium Summit convened in New York City and has been called the largest assemblage of heads of state under one roof in all of human history.

What is this Summit all about? Where does the New World Order vision stand today? From above document and others on the website we can glean that the following are on the agenda:

1. A global "peacekeeping force," publicly endorsed Wednesday by Bill Clinton. He told the gathered dignitaries that the UN needs "a rapid deployment force of well-trained and well-equipped solders capable of projecting ‘credible force’ into trouble spots." Along these lines, a Republican, Constance Morella (R-MD), has introduced a bill calling for a United Nations Rapid Deployment Force, which would turn 6,000 American soldiers over to the UN, which would mean that Americans would be taking orders from non-Americans. Seven other countries have already signed aboard with similar pledges. The UN is ready to create its own "standing army" of the sort the U.S. Constitution forbids.

2. An International Criminal Court – ostensibly to hold national governments accountable for human rights abuses; an international treaty "would provide for compulsory referral of unresolved disputes to [an] International Court of Justice." U.S. citizens could, in principle, be tried before tribunals of non-Americans.

3. A global system of taxation: [the Forum urges the United Nations] "to introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies, and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication."

4. Global coerced redistribution of wealth and income, combined with global affirmative action: [Governments should] "focus their efforts and policies on addressing the root causes of poverty and providing for the basic needs of all, giving special priority to the needs and rights of disadvantaged and underrepresented."

5. A global approach to AIDS, .... To increase spending for health research and to ensure that the fruits of this research reach the people."[Rockefeller/morgans own most of the pharmaceutical industry cv]

6. The international equivalent of the Americans With Disabilities Act:.... To further recognize and meet their special needs, introduce inclusive policies and programmes for their empowerment, and ensure that they take a leading role in poverty eradication."

7. .. the UN is called upon "to ensure that gender mainstreaming effectively brings women into leadership positions throughout the system and a gender perspective into all its programmes and policies; to provide gender training; …

8. International public education: "provide universal access to ‘education for all,’ prioritizing free basic education and skills training….

9. International equivalents of affirmative action and minimum wage laws: ....

10. Complete absolution of past debts: [Governments should] "cancel the debts of developing countries, including odious debts, the repayment of which diverts funds from basic needs…."

11. Universal gun registration: the UN should "expand the UN Arms register ...

12. Strengthening UN power generally: "A major task of the world community in the twenty-first century will be to strengthen and greatly enhance the role of the United Nations in the global context. ... to further strengthen and augment international institutions capable of implementing and enforcing international standards, norms, and law, leading toward the formation of a new political and economic order. [Emphasis mine- author of article]

13. Elimination of veto power:... In others words, a major internal check on the power of the superelite is to be eliminated, by incremental steps.

There is, of course, more – much, much more..... www.lewrockwell.com...

Nicely presented bait. They do not bother to say that any "Democracy" or representation is a dog and pony show as is becoming increasingly obvious in the EU.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by jdub297

 

People outraged about this should have spoke up when they made cannabis illegal and alcohol and tobacco legal. Now there's outrage over milk? The horses are out. You are trying to close a door too late.

how old do you think we are?!? haha! most people on this forum weren't even born yet! cannabis was made illegal in 1961. prohibition (alcohol) ended in 1933. it is my understanding that cigarettes were never illegal at any time to begin with (at least not in the US). How could people outraged about this have spoken up about things that happened before they were born, or at the very least when they were small children (for those born prior to 1961). It's not like we "dropped the ball" and missed out chance and now we should be like "oh well. horses are out. it's too late. door's closed. might as well just settle in and accept the status quo."

ETA: by the way, i read and pretty much agree with the meat of the rest of your post. and i'm not trying to target you or "troll" you. i just... that one statement set wrong with me, so i wanted to clarify.

Originally posted by N34Li3Z
reply to post by highpriestess

 

uh oh! my ex forgot to pasteurize her boob milk! I guess we need to warn the mothers of the world of this terrible mistake all new borns are wickedly being subjected to, the evils of unpasteurized mothers milk!

Don't worry, California will boil your family for you to ensure safety!
There may even be a subsidy or grant available if you will boil or sterilize your neighbors, too.

jw

Originally posted by caladonea
There are a lot of stores that sell organic, natural products ......I think there are (hidden agendas) in this raid....I think that perhaps the people involved...have made some very dangerous enemies....enemies who have (secret government connections) and who know they don't have to play by the rules.

Yes! There is a difference between offering "government-approved" food that meets their regulatory requirements for a "natural," or "organic," label. That doesn't guarantee anything.

Know your proiducer!
You should always use common sense when giving anything to your family to eat or drink, but reliance upon the gov't is misplaced and dangerous for reasons you cannot imagine.

jw

reply to post by soficrow

Agreed. Daddy Bush spearheaded the PLAN - via the original NAFTA terms

Your bias betrays you.

Clinton pushed for and secured NAFTA.

You are irrelevant.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Firstly, these agencies had an arrest warrant and a search warrant. I don't know exactly what code violations James Stewart is charged with, but from what I gather, they are felony charges stemming from a violation of international shipping laws.

You are very insightful, and well informed about criminal procedure generally, and as written.

In practice, it is a bit different.

You have no doubt hear the brag that a competent prosecutor couold "indict a napkin." This is a fact. Speaking from experience, I can assure you that if I wanted sommeone off the streets I could present a "prima facie" case sufficient to justify the intrusion into their abode, and siezure of their property.

The "affidavit" sufficient to support a warrant can be entirely based upon hearsay and speculation. The fact that some judge in California found some affidavit to be sufficent to support the accusation of a crime has nothing to do with reality.

Mr. Stewrt and his co-conspirators are Constitutionally presumed innocent regardless of local yokel prejudices.

jw

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Hopefully by now people have mentioned that the premise of this thread is not true?
That company has been operating without any licenses, permits or inspections since 2007. They have had many warnings and will not stop.
The real question is why would anyone buy anything from them in the first place. If they don't care about operating legally, I doubt they care about cleanliness. Must be Inbred

I don't get this paranoid, delusional madness about Pasteurizing Milk? A person would have to be nuts to buy from that place to begin with.
This is not a conspiracy, just some nuts with some Cow's who don't know what they are doing.

How pathetic.

The vendors/producres know exacxtly what they are doing, as do their customers.

What objections do you have to a williung seller and a willing buyer under no compulsion to buy or sell, for a product of which both sides are equally informed?

What I just recited is the definition of a fair market transaction. Opposed?

If I grow toamtoes in my backyard, and my neighbor wants to pay me for my trouble for a couple pounds of them, why should your fears, insecurity and delusions affect our exchange?

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Know your producer!
You should always use common sense when giving anything to your family to eat or drink, but reliance upon the gov't is misplaced and dangerous for reasons you cannot imagine.

Just a quick history as to why "USDA Gov't Approved" label isn't worth spit any more.

1 in 6 Americans sickened, 128,000 hospitalized and 3,000 die each year from food-borne illness — CDC

Funny how NOT ONE of those screaming headlines mentions that before big Ag mucked up the system in 1996 the illneses were:
1993 - 489
1994 - 653
1995 - 628
1996 - 477
(Data from CDC website: total for food illness from: bacteria, beef, pork, poultry, seafood, complex)

Yet after HACCP was implemented the reported illnesses immediately spiked to over 1200 and have continued up ever since.

TIMELINE

1995 - World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag was ratified at the instigation of the IPC (Ag Cartel)

1996 - USDA/FDA adopted the international HACCP guidelines.

...when USDA "officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90's, the agency made the following enticing promises:

* "Under HACCP, the agency will implement a ‘Hands Off' role in meat inspection.
* "Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself.
* "Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority.
* "Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans."

As a result, the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into play. The plan would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible for the implementation of the plan.

As a result, the inspector was no longer responsible for what was happening on the plant floor: that was left to company personnel.

The new role of the inspector was to make sure that plant personnel were carrying out their duties in a manner consistent with the HACCP plan. In many cases this amounted to making sure that all of the paper work was in the proper order.

mfu.org...

With government inspectors relegated to inspecting paperwork and no longer actually inspecting food, there was no need for a large number of labs to do analysis.

A Food and Drug Administration plan to close seven of 13 field laboratories has angered some lawmakers, government workers and safety advocates...

Organic Consumers use to have a nice graph showing the sharp spike in food borne illness after HACCP was up and running. Unfortunately Organic Consumers is funded by the Rockefeller foundations so the graph was removed.

I went to the CDC site and recreated the graph to send to Farm-to-Consumer. The incidence of food borne illness in the three years before HACCP was less than half the incidence in the three years after HACCP was fully implemented.

SEE: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA's “Don't Look, Don't Know” Policy

Notice how in the following remarks of Congressman Durbin, NOTHING is ever said about the connection between a switch from hands on government inspection to Corporate inspection with a glance at the paperwork by government "Food Inspectors" This is despite numerous complaints by food inspectors, testimony before Congress by the chairman of the food inspectors union AND over 1000 non-compliance reports (16 POUND) turned up as a result of a FOIA from the food inspectors union!!!!

... Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

When I introduced this bill in the last Congress, we were in the middle of one of the largest food-borne illness outbreaks in the history of our country. Nearly 1500 people fell sick last spring and summer because of Salmonella Saintpaul, leading to a Government investigation that pointed the finger first at tomatoes and then at jalapeno peppers in Texas before settling on Serrano peppers in Mexico.....

www.ftcldf.org...

Congressman Durbin (D) and Congresswoman Delauro (D) have spent about a decade trying to get a bill passed that would hand control of the US food supply over to the Ag Cartel running the World Trade Organization. Now they have finally done so. Our food will become less safe and more expensive. The corporations through "TRACEABILITY" (mandated by the WTO) will point the finger at farmers ducking all liability. Notice how the illustration points the finger at FLORIDA FARMERS then TEXAS FARMERS and then Mexico but NEVER mentions the corporation who PACKAGED, TESTED and SOLD the produce!


Remember HACCP???
"..the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into play. The plan would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible for the implementation of the plan...." [/b]

So WHY didn't DURBIN ever mention the role of the processing plant in the whole debacle??? WHY do only FARMERS show up in the news in conjunction to the problem???

48 Million US Cases of Food-Borne Illness in 2010 Push Industry toward RFID-Enabled Food Safety Systems - “RFID-enabled Food Safety and Traceability Systems”

reply to post by jdub297

The "affidavit" sufficient to support a warrant can be entirely based upon hearsay and speculation. The fact that some judge in California found some affidavit to be sufficent to support the accusation of a crime has nothing to do with reality.

HI, Jdub,

I'm glad you brought up the affidavit. And, unfortunately, that's the part of this search warrant that we are in the dark about (unless someone has posted it since my last--exceedingly long--post...lol). Indeed, this is where the big question mark exists because, as you said, who knows what was presented in the affidavit that led up to the judge authorizing it. This will be the interesting part of the story that has yet to unfold.

Like I said earlier, I don't doubt there is some nefarious intentions with this raid of Rawesome Foods. My issue was with the way a couple of the original media sources portrayed the incident with a blatant misrepresentation of the legal facts in order to sensationalize the event. Other media sources picked up on the story and were reporting off those original articles. I mean, frankly, with such a blatant lack of understanding of the legal system, these journalists had no business even reporting on this topic. LOL

Thanks for your reply ......

I still would be a bit nervous about drinking anything unpasteurized because one never knows if you will get sick from it or not. Raw milk is illegal in Canada but farmers are allowed to drink it however the laws are getting looser on it.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Other media sources picked up on the story and were reporting off those original articles. I mean, frankly, with such a blatant lack of understanding of the legal system, these journalists had no business even reporting on this topic. LOL

The media is not ALLOWED to report the actual facts only the version the Corporations want.

Remember Monsanto got Derry Brownfield Kicked off the air.

Two reporters got fired in Florida and the Wiki article on the ADM CEO (biggest campaign donor in the USA) mentions him donating a ton of money to FLORIDA news media, but nothing else.

John Munsell told me he was interviewed by a big NYC magazine for three days, but his story got killed by the magazine owner as it went to press.

Mother Jones printed and so did Jolley.
Jolley: Five Minutes With John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA

How ever that did not give the story the nation wide coverage it deserved.

reply to post by jdub297

Your bias betrays you.

My bias: I'm anti-corporate and anti-global corporate government; I am fully aware that the Republicans AND Democrats in the USA, and the Conservatives AND Liberals in Canada are all in partnership with multinational corporations. Whether by choice or not.

Clinton pushed for and secured NAFTA.

Wrong. Here are a few facts and a bit of the history. Each nations' commitment to "harmonize" their respective laws was secured early, and the NAFTA signed in 1992 by Sr. Bush, Mulroney and Salinas incorporated most FTA provisions (as signed by Reagan and Mulroney) - including the commitment to "harmonization" - and set deadlines for 'implementation.'

…My beef is that the FTA - specifically the terms for "harmonization" and definition of "information as commodity" - became the template for trade agreements globally, supporting global corporate expansion, disregarding individual human beings and effectively establishing global corporate government.

December 17, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

Here's a quick overview of the lead-up:

November 13, 1979: While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”

January 1981: President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.

October 9, 1984: The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.

September 26, 1985: Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.

December 10, 1985: President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.

November 6, 1987: Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.

January 2, 1988: Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.

April 7 to 10, 1991: Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.

May 24, 1991: The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.

August 12, 1992: Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.

December 17, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

You are irrelevant.

You are ill-informed. Hopefully you will learn a bit of history and get a few facts before you throw any more mud.

Also see:
T&C Issues
ATS Terms and Condition

well, then. on the subject of Rawesome Foods... here is a pretty funny little blog regarding the Rawesome raids. it's satire, and hits the nail right on the head.

8 Reasons Raw Foodies Are Dangerous Extremists (Satire)

Originally posted by dave0davidson
reply to post by jdub297

 

Wow this is just crazy. I was trying to learn more about what charges were filed against them, and I dug up a copy of the warrant to search rawsome foods. Check out the items they were looking for in the raid. It seems like the feds were more interested in getting lists of members, and lists of people who advocate raw dairy than they were about the actual milk.

Link to warrant

HAHAHA... I'm sorry but I can only laugh at this story. If I did not laugh I would be crying myself to sleep over this. Has America really falling this deep? Is it possible that the country that claims to be the shinning beacon of light for democracy and liberty has become a dictatorship in which a person does not even have the choice anymore what milk to drink? Of course the drinking of raw milk is not whit out risk. You are drinking a fluid that comes out of a living body and in that body there will be bacteria. On the other hand cowmilk is nothing else but mothermilk. You will also find bacteria in human mother milk so should we ban baby's from drinking it?

And the American government wonders why more and more people and governments around the globe dislike them or even hate them. The founding fathers of America would be sick the see what has become of there dreams and there ideals...

Originally posted by VanXanten
HAHAHA... I'm sorry but I can only laugh at this story. If I did not laugh I would be crying myself to sleep over this. Has America really falling this deep? Is it possible that the country that claims to be the shinning beacon of light for democracy and liberty has become a dictatorship in which a person does not even have the choice anymore what milk to drink? Of course the drinking of raw milk is not whit out risk. You are drinking a fluid that comes out of a living body and in that body there will be bacteria. On the other hand cowmilk is nothing else but mothermilk. You will also find bacteria in human mother milk so should we ban baby's from drinking it?

And the American government wonders why more and more people and governments around the globe dislike them or even hate them. The founding fathers of America would be sick the see what has become of there dreams and there ideals...

yes. to pretty much everything you just said. yes. :-/

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

...."Government" really doesn't have an agenda -- merely a rudderless collection of people who are trying to get re-elected.....

The problem is the collection of high power types DO have an agenda and long term plans and use the government, MSM and shools to push it forward.

History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job follows seventy years of deliberated destruction of US farming and rural life to "better fit the needs" of corporate America. The needs for a large cheap labor pool and captive customer base.

That is why the CED, sister organization to the CFR was formed.

Yeah, that's why I think Willy Nelson's "Farm Aid" is so important -- we really need to support local farmers, not only for health and to "distribute" production, but also because these foods don't have to travel 1,500 miles.

Family farmers LIVE where they work -- so they aren't going to be over-using the franken-foods and using factory techniques. The blanket spraying for bugs and weeds is a no-win process, because the weeds and bugs adapt eventually and all you have is more expensive and toxic foods. The bio-engineering by Monsanto and others is putting the pesticides IN the food -- granted, it's a "natural mushroom-based toxin" -- but it doesn't wash off the sprayed on organic mushroom toxins. So that leads to more allergies and non-lethal sickness.

>> Fox News won in the Supreme Court for the right to lie -- they stopped their own contract reporters from publishing an article about the cancer-growing effects of BGH (bovine growth hormone) in cows milk -- IT DOES TRANSFER TO PEOPLE. The price of milk is artificially high -- so that small farms can survive. However, the factory farms win out because they "flood the market" with their cheaper to produce milk because they force cows to double output with the BGH.

I don't think there as an initial PLOT to make Americans sicker -- but it sure is good for business. Monsanto makes the allergy meds that treat the diseases and allergies people get from their franken-foods. The drug companies import goods and charge inflated prices because they successfully lobbied the Bush government to NOT negotiate prices -- hence, the same drugs cost twice as much in the USA as they do in Canada -- for no other reason but that the Free Market created a non-free, non-competitive bidding captive market. And Americans need MORE treatments than other nations, because the INDUSTRY gets to dictate that cows may NOT be inspected for "mad cow" (for instance).

MOST of the damage right now -- is merely that self-serving parasites have blocked any HONEST people from getting into positions of power in the justice system and government (at the top, mostly). So BP gets to pollute the Gulf while regulators of the oil industry actually were caught doing drugs and having orgies with those that they were supposed to regulate (look it up if you doubt). In this corrupt society, they spend less on TV ads and any "penalties" than they would have had they put in the correct equipment and NOT ruined the Gulf.

It's the organic process that creates cancer -- no need to look for a plot.


>> But YES, there are those who have plotted and conspired -- not the least of which was the DECISION during the Reagan years to get rid of civics classes. I definitely think that the Bush Family, The Federalist Society, C Street, Carlysle Group, and the US Chamber of Commerce (just to name a few) -- have been ACTIVELY plotting a two-tier indentured servant fascist state for some time. The "bilderberg" and "illuminati" and "masonic" conspiracies create more smoke screen than light on the real conspiracies. Even if there is some malevolent snake worshiping organization -- we don't need to look far from right in front of our noses to SEE the damage being done.

The USA never got rid of the facists after WW II -- and THAT is what allowed the corruption and death by a thousand cuts. Here is a discussion of just that which relates to THIS topic as well; LINK

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by jdub297

Clinton pushed for and secured NAFTA.

Wrong. Here are a few facts and a bit of the history. Each nations' commitment to "harmonize" their respective laws was secured early, and the NAFTA signed in 1992 by Sr. Bush, Mulroney and Salinas incorporated most FTA provisions (as signed by Reagan and Mulroney) - including the commitment to "harmonization" - and set deadlines for 'implementation.'

Signing the "framework" is NOT enactment.

Bill Clinton pushed for and enacted NAFTA:

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

NAFTA

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I'm sure you recognize that it's impossible to stop a speeding train. From your source:

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

And more:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43a6b70f1c75.jpg[/atsimg]

December 17, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

...They pushed it through before the elections - it was a done deal.

reply to post by jdub297


UPDATE!

James Stewart, the owner of the popular Los Angeles health food store Rawesome foods, has been released on bail, one week after armed officers raided his shop for allegedly conspiring to illegally sell raw dairy products.

According to the LA Weekly, Stewart was released on $30,000 bail and told he could not sell unpasteurized dairy without a license.

Of the two other defendants swept up in the raid, Healthy Family Farms employees Sharon Palmer and Victoria Bloch, only Palmer has yet to be arraigned.

Stewart and his colleagues are accused of failing to fill out the proper paperwork to sell raw daily products in California

www.takepart.com...

While all are now out on bail, they remain subject to a gag order. Others are monitoring this as well.
www.naturalnews.com...

jw