Thursday, April 26, 2012

Taking Liberties: Local farms in fight to stop growing regulation
    See the report on FOX News here:

    Marlene Stasinos believes the best food is local food.

    “It’s more healthy. It’s less processed,” she says as she walks from her farm stand toward her
     home in Haverhill, Mass. “It’s just better for you when you eat it.”

    Stasinos’ family has been farming in and around Haverhill for three generations, but she says
    backyard farming is under attack.

    “It's tough to grow local when the regulations stop you,” she said.

    Last year, Stasinos and her husband Chris were raising eight pigs on her 139-acre hay farm.
    Then the local Board of Health stepped in.

    “They told us no,” she recalls. “We couldn’t believe it.”

    She says the board told her her barn was too close to the road and too close to
    her home.

    “This barn has been here for 200 years,” she said, pointing out that for most of that
    time, it housed livestock.

    “They used to build barns close to the main road to make it easier to get the
    meat to market.”

    Haverhill rules require livestock be kept more than 100 feet from a home and more than
    300 feet from a property line.

    “If every farm in Haverhill followed those rules,” Stasinos said. “There would be no
    farms left.”

    She says local rules and regulations make growing local untenable.

    “Unfortunately, it's going to put us out of business,” she said. “We are not going to be
    able to continue farming if the regulations keep squeezing us.”

    Hogwash, says attorney Arthur Aidala, who says regulations are necessary whenever you’re
    raising animals.

    "These are animals people are going to eat and people are living right next to,” he says.
    “You have to regulate them.”

    But not allowing eight pigs on 139 acres?

    “No one is saying they can't raise the pigs,” countered Aidala, “what we are saying is if you
    are going to raise the pigs, we want you to maintain certain standards so that everyone's
    health and safety is secure.”

    Peter Carbone of the Haverhill Board of Health agrees. “This is a work in progress,”
    said Carbone, who said the town is debating the issue. "There could possibly be a vote in May.

    Haverhill and Carbone have come under fire from farming groups throughout Massachusetts
    who say if Haverhill’s rules are adopted by other towns, it will be the end of local farming.

    First they get rid of pigs,” said Rich Bonnano, president of  the Massachusetts Farm Bureau
    Federation, “then they’re going to come after chickens, then maybe beef.”

    Bonnano says Haverhill set its rules with no idea about what it takes to raise animals. He says
    the town and other towns like it will end up with no local food.

    “It’s an attack on the buy local movement,” he said.

    Carbone says he is just concerned about people’s health and safety.

    “Pigs aren't a risk to anybody's health,” counters Stasinos, who says, “over-regulation is
     the real health problem.”

    “We won’t be able to grow food if they keep over-regulating us,” she said.
Other states watch for Arizona immigration ruling
By Mariano Castillo, CNN

(CNN) -- Lawmakers across the nation closely followed Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments over the fate of Arizona's tough immigration law.

After all, a handful of states have already passed similar laws that are also facing court challenges, and the Arizona decision will likely tip their cases one way or another.

But the ripple effect from the eventual ruling extends further.

"Every state is dealing with immigration," said Ann Morse, program director of the Immigrant Policy Project at the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2011, all 50 states and Puerto Rico introduced a record number of bills or resolutions relating to immigrants or refugees, the conference has found.

So every state is going to be looking at the Supreme Court decision on the Arizona law to see what next steps they will take in their legislatures, Morse said.

The effect on other states will be noticed in next year's legislative sessions, as many state lawmakers have put their legislation on hold until the Arizona case is decided.

The current state sessions have seen the number of introduced immigration-related bills decline, she said.

The most immediate effect of the Arizona case will be in the states that have passed similar laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah all passed these stringent anti-illegal immigration laws, and all except for South Carolina already face court challenges.

Some suggested after the hearing that the questions and statements made by the justices hinted that they are leaning toward Arizona's side.

"Of course, we likely will not know the Court's decision for weeks. But I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said.

Outside of Arizona, other states weighed in.

"The court, in this landmark case, will provide guidance on the validity of Arizona's immigration law which will impact Alabama's immigration law along with those of several other states," Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said.

"I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will recognize that the states can play an important role in assisting the federal government in fulfilling its responsibility to enforce the immigration laws of this country," he added.

In Georgia, immigration lawyers have brought up the possibility of having parts or all of the state's immigration law invalidated if the government wins, according to state Sen. Vincent Fort, who opposes the Arizona law.

At the time the Georgia law was passed, proponents made it different from the Arizona law in ways they believed made it more difficult to challenge in court.

The news that the justices may be leaning toward Arizona's argument is troubling, Fort said, but it is too early to draw conclusions.

"You have to be real careful how you interpret how they're heading in a decision," he said.

Not all discussions on immigration at the state level have been about tough enforcement measures. Some states have passed resolutions honoring the contributions of immigrants to their communities, and others have asked the federal government to act more forcefully.

Brewer said that a recent trip to the border reminded her why her state had to act on the issue of illegal immigration.

"The job of securing the border is not done, not so long as drugs and humans continue to be smuggled north in large numbers at the direction of violent cartels and armed gangs," she said. "As governor, I have a duty to uphold the Constitution and a responsibility to protect the people of Arizona."

Just what I blogged on days ago!


Tony Perkins: Eligibility 'legitimate issue'

Says Constitution has requirements for president

The president of the Washington-based Family Research Council says that questions about Barack Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office are appropriate because the eligibility of a president, under the Constitution, is a legitimate issue.

Tony Perkins joins a long list of high-profile personalities, ranging from Matt Romney and Donald Trump to Pat Boone, who have raised questions about the dispute.

The statements from Perkins come in a video posted online by RightWingWatch, a project of the left-wing group People for the American Way that monitors conservative political organizations.

In the brief clip posted online, Perkins discusses the efforts on the part of left-leaning individuals to control the issues. The strategy, similar to the teachings of Saul Alinsky, is to marginalize anyone with disagreements with the desired message.

“What the media has done, going back to an earlier discussion about the media … is that they have attempted to marginalize anyone who challenges this administration on those principles and that driving ideology,” Perkins said.

“You know, it goes back to what they did to those that … questioned the issue of his birth certificate,” Perkins said on the video. “Look, I don’t know about all that. But I will tell you this. It’s a legitimate issue from the standpoint of what the Constitution says.”

He concluded that, “I think what we’ve done is we’ve done great harm to the foundation of our government by marginalizing and attacking anyone who brings up a legitimate issue.”

WND has reported on many legal challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, dating back to his election in 2008 after not documenting his eligibility status under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”

The early legal cases challenged his presence in the White House, and a recent round of cases has challenged placing his name on state election ballots for the 2012 election without providing documentation.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

From Perkins:

FRC told WND that the discussion was part of an American Family Association Washington Watch program, where the influences of Marxism on Washington were the topic.

The full commentary from Perkins is:

“I would encourage people to read the article, because, you know what, we throw around labels a lot. And we’ve become desensitized. And what we’re looking here and what Sandy’s bringing up here are not labels – we’re not calling somebody a Marxist or a socialist because, you know. No, because, absolutely, we’re looking at facts, and what the media has done – going back to an earlier discussion about the media is that they have attempted to marginalize anyone who challenges this administration on these principles and that driving ideology. It goes back to what they did to those that, you know, question the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. Look, I don’t know about all of that, but I will tell you this, it’s a legitimate issue from a standpoint of what the constitution says. And I think what we’ve done, we’ve done great harm to the foundation of our government, by marginalizing and attacking anyone who brings up a legitimate issue. And what Sandy’s talking about here, is the policies, the ideology, and the connection, that, when you put it all together, it connects the dots. It makes you wonder, ‘why did he risk Congress and control of the House to push through healthcare?’ It’s a part of that ideology.”

The video, with Perkins’ comments starting about the 6:28 mark:

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and speculate that he didn’t use a U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

A year ago,, Obama released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii, but since then, numerous experts in imaging, documents and computers have concluded it isn’t authentic.

See the report that documents who has asked questions about the controversy.

Among those who have raised the issue are Lord Christopher Monckton, Michael Savage, Franklin Graham, Pat Buchanan, the Drudge Report, Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh.
The threats begin...what took them so long!
By: Diane Sori

And so it begins... as a uniformed police officer sits patiently outside the West Miami home of Marco Rubio even while he’s in D.C., reports have circulated and been verified by the U.S. Capitol Police, that Rubio and his family have been given both police and Secret Service protection because a serious ‘reported threat’ was made against him.   

Odd isn’t it that after nine years in the Florida House, including being the high profile Speaker for two of those years (‘07 to ’09), and his almost two years as Florida’s freshman Senator, suddenly a serious ‘reported threat’ is being made against him...something sure smells fishy and that fish, in my opinion, has a name beginning with the letter 'O'. 

Barack Hussein Obama is scared, really sacred that his reign of anti-Americanism and pro-Socialism will soon be coming to an end.  This man will try, and will do anything to divert our attention away from his total failure of a presidency, as he can run neither on his record, his foreign policy, nor his credibility...he can only run by spewing lies and innuendos, causing or feeding into diversionary scandals, trying to start class warfare, and most of all his hoped for race war to keep us so afraid that we will fear going out to vote.

Obama knows he has a formidable candidate in Mitt Romney, and he knows that if Romney does indeed choose Rubio to be his VP, who in turn will then assuredly help turn Florida, one of ‘the key states’ if not ‘THE’ key state in this election, back into the red column, Obama is running scared big time. 

So what better way to scare off a man who would appeal to the large Hispanic vote, a man who is adored by the TEA Party, a man who would help lock-up the presidency for Romney, and especially a man who has young children, what better way than to have a serious threat against him be made, and hope that he will be scared enough NOT to accept the position if it is offered to him.  

While I am NOT saying that Obama is personally behind this, although he very well could be, it is my opinion that his handlers and minions are absolutely capable of orchestrating something like this from their dark lairs behind the scenes, and that they are also capable of keeping their involvement quiet.  I believe this could be one of the tactics used by men like George Soros, Eric Holder, the New Back Panthers, even blowhards Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for that matter, to stop a winning ROMNEY/RUBIO ticket, because they know that if their man goes down they go down with him.  

As Rubio’s star in the Republican Party rises with each passing day, as he campaigned with Romney in Pennsylvania, as he delivered a "major address" on foreign policy on Wednesday at D.C.'s Brookings Institution, as he continues to appear on news show after news show, the rumor mill is working full force in speculating that Rubio will be it.  And poor little ‘bama’ sits there aghast knowing that a ROMNEY/RUBIO ticket would be his downfall.  

So something has to be done to stop this ticket from happening, something so BIG that Rubio would be scared off not only out of fear that something could happen to him but also that something could happen to his wife and children as well, and what fits that bill more perfectly than to make serious threats, whether they are real or not.

Now I am NOT saying that this is what happened.  Maybe the threats are coming from someone else, someone with a personal ax to grind with Marco, who really knows at this point, but I do know the timing and circumstances makes one wonder.  If this indeed be the case, I hope Rubio does NOT give in to these people and their despicable tactics because America needs him to stand strong against those out to destroy her and him as well.