Posted on 06/09/2011 8:21:50 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
The definition of “totalitarian” is: “of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. [Emphasis added.]” And while we’re not quite there yet — we still do hear other (mostly stupid) opinions — read the following and tell me if our government doesn’t meet the italicized portion of the above definition.
Rural Missouri farmer John Dollarhite was just fined $90,000 by our central government for engaging in a commercial endeavor.
Was he an illegal alien running drugs across our border?
No, such people benefit from a Department of Injustice that takes their side against Border Patrol agents.
Was a prostitution ring being run out of his home?
No, such people are rewarded with reelection to Congress.
Rather, Dollarhite’s dastardly sin was that he started a business selling rabbits.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Look, we have thousands of people die from eating bad meat, and from E Coli. So if you do not like the old laws about meat processing you get all you friend together and lobby congress. Just say you demand the right to kill your fellow citizens. You will find very thin support.
Apparently Rural Missouri farmer John Dollarhite, wasn’t one of Holder’s people and he didn’t employ illegal aliens.
Again, you don’t seem to get it. I couldn’t care less when the act was passed. If it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional.
I have no problem with the states regulating slaughterhouses and large scale animal breeding. But I have a huge problem with the feds doing it because they have no constitutional right to do it.
But I do stand corrected. I said that the feds have been violating the Constitution for 100 years. But if that unconstitutional act was passed in 1906, then the feds have been violating the Constitution for 105 years.
Do you by chance work for the federal government?
Aside from the issue of large breeding operations having satisfactory health/facility standards, might this also have anything to do with the danger of tuleremia (or whatever that Rabbit disease is called)?
Does having known and sleeping with a lady that worked for the IRS count. I was divorced at the time, have no idea where the wonderful lady is today. But that was the only relationship other than I am a veteran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110524/pl_dailycaller/usdafinesmissourifamily90kforsellingafewrabbitswithoutalicense
Hey genius, you really are something. Did you actually read the article you provided a link for? Here is the relevant part of it:
“When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation.”
So the rest of us were right and you were wrong. The farmer was cited for selling rabbits as PETS, not as meat. Do you get it yet?
Also, this article you provided doesn’t help your argument in any way. It paints a picture of a heavy-handed fed gov. that wanted “to make an example out of [the farmer].” That’s what the article says.
Man you’re dense.
The investigation was for selling meat, genius, and you are the one that claimed they were not selling habit meat.
Now who’s lying? That’s not what your article says.
“By by selling to pet stores for resale, the humble Dollarhites became “wholesale breeders of pet animals,” said Dave Sacks, a spokesman for USDA who defended the fine, even while admitting it “looks curious” to the average person.”
But I get it. I’ve tweaked your ego and now you’re too proud to just say, hey, you’re right. I got that wrong.
Pride goeth before a fall.
Cat walking on your keyboard again?
If you have details that we don’t know about, that is what FR is all about. Getting to the bottom of the story.
Tell us more.
Sometimes I've seen end-justifies-the-means arguments in support of federal regulations offered as a substitute for an enumerated power.
Over the years I've found that those arguments seem especially prevalent among people who are or were career government employees, but it isn't always the case.
Droid,Droid, little key pad big thumbs, and some times it changes words, however, the spell checker does not know how to spell Droid.
Have no idea what the law is about abusive pet animal breeding, but they caught one guy about 60 miles from where I lived with hundreds of female dogs, said the cages had never been cleaned. Do not know, but they should have put him under the jail.
One would think that his customers could judge whether the animals they were getting were healthy and well-cared for. But I guess nothing is officially true until a government inspector says it is. Or is it, 'until it is officially denied' (ala Weiner)?
This is all getting so confusing...
Agreed. But that sounds like something for state or county laws to handle. It’s not right, but it’s not national security or a threat to the stability of the republic, either.
Org, I actually agree with you. But the point is that the ‘they’ who should have put him under the jail are state authorities, not federal ones. The Constitution simply doesn’t allow the feds to be involved in this. Is this that hard to understand?
I found the regs and it looks like they were in violation of some animal protection law and rules from back in the 90’s. Maybe this was in addition to the things you mention but this is what they were charged with / about.
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.