[US Patriot]

The future of Raw Milk in California in jeopardy

The governor of California and his henchmen have just legislated away our right to drink raw milk. Of course they didn't ban it outright: that would have been noticed by the citizens of the state of California and protested against. No, they chose to pull a sneaking maneuver and inserted eight little words that will have the same effect.

These eight words will prevent California dairies from selling raw milk:

"or more than ten coliform bacteria per milliliter"

Those eight words were added to dairy legislation in California on October 8, 2007.

Assembly Bill #1735 (AB 1735) was signed by the Governor and becomes law on January 1st, 2008. Contained in this law are new standards for raw milk. These new standards require 10 coliform bacteria per ml or less. This standard does not increase the safety of raw milk and it will make the production of organic raw milk in California nearly impossible. Under the tried and true old standards that have been in existence for forty years or more, coliforms could be 50 or 500. It did not matter.

A press conference was held at the Fresno Farmer's Market in Fresno on Saturday, October 27 at 11 a.m. in protest of the new law. This post will be updated as more details become available.

You might be thinking, "I don't drink raw milk. Why should I care?" While many of us who grew up drinking raw milk and extol the benefits of drinking a healthy natural beverage. This isn't merely about the availability of milk. This issue extends far beyond the obvious in that our government is supposed to be transparent. Ours is supposed to function as a government for and by the people. When our public officials use underhanded, sneaky and unethical tactics to achieve their goals, we all pay the price.

The EPA reports that even testing for fecal coliforms (a subset of coliform bacteria) is a "a poor indicator of the risk of digestive system illness." The EPA goes on to advise that the only way to determine whether food is actually sanitary is to test for those specific coliforms that can be a sign of something harmful such as E. coli and enterococci. Neglecting to test for those specific harmful coliforms, but banning all coliforms outright is equivalent to forcing Ford to recall every vehicle they ever made when only a single model year of one product is found to have a flaw. Even then, the previous law set the limit of coliforms at 750 coliforms per mL. A legal reduction of over 98% over the course of less than 3 months cannot be interpreted as anything other than a direct attack on raw milk providers, particularly when far more than 90% of coliform bacteria are not harmful.

This is not the first-time I've personally witnessed the blatant disregard for public opinion and openness required for our government to function properly by those in Sacramento. For instance, it's not an uncommon practice for a legislator to reuse a bill number that is no longer active - after the date legally prescribed under California law. There is a reason legislation isn't allowed to be introduced after a certain date, but that doesn't stop our legislative branch from manipulating the rules to their advantage.

How long will Californians stand by and allow our elected officials to skirt the laws that guarantee the rest of us a spot at the table? If you are sick and tired of being railroaded and regulated to death, now is your opportunity to let your voice be heard in Sacramento. Contact your legislators and let them know what you think about the way they are conducting our business.

More Information:

• Government Sneak Attack on California Raw Milk
• Contact lawmakers today about Ag. Bill 1735
• Eight words are threatening to change your life:
• State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers
• Will Raw Milk Still Be Available in CA Come Jan. 1?
• Arizona Raw Dairy Alert
• What is Organic?

Labels: AB 1735, California, legislation, Organic Pastures, raw milk

Child and Family Protection Association recently issued an alert on California Assembly Bill 755 (AB 755) and while I agree that this bill creates a huge problem for parents of young children. I really think they miss the point.

The alert highlights the following points of contention:

AB 755 (Assembly Member Sally Lieber) – Prohibition of Spanking Opposition Points to Share with Legislators
Position: Strongly Oppose
Status: AB 755 (introduced 2/22/07)

Assembly Member Sally Lieber's first proposal to address all spanking of children ages three and under was never introduced as a bill, apparently due to much opposition. However, contrary to claims originating from her office:

1. She has not "fixed" her no-spank proposal; she has only adopted a different strategy;
2. AB 755 is an anti-spanking bill "in disguise" and would have the effect of abolishing most spanking without using language directly outlawing spanking.
3. Lieber believes that all "good parents" never spank their children; that only "bad parents" do, and therefore "good parents" do not need to be worried about her bill; and
4. When Lieber claims that her bill only deals with child abuse, remember that she believes that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse. Her strategy in AB 755 is to treat all spanking with an object as criminal child abuse. She has deliberately failed to make any distinction between spanking as a method of discipline and true child abuse.

AB 755 would amend Penal Code 273a, which currently makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm, or injury to any minor child. AB 755 would create a new "rebuttable presumption" that physical pain or mental suffering inflicted upon a child is unjustifiable if it is caused by any of the seven kinds of actions, which are listed in AB 755.

The first of the seven actions listed is: "the use of an implementation, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe." This first action includes the act of spanking with an implement (i.e. an object other than using one's hand).

The significance of the new "rebuttable presumption" in AB 755 is that regardless of any circumstances, the police and District Attorney would have to consider all spanking with an implement to be unjustifiable. Parents would have the difficult task of proving (rebutting the charges) that the spanking was justifiable to the satisfaction of the court in a criminal trial in order to avoid being sent to jail for up to one year or receiving other penalties. The case also could be referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and Juvenile Court, which could result in the possible temporary or permanent loss of custody of their children.

Roy M. Hanson, Jr.
Child and Family Protection Association
Alert issued April 12, 2007
PO Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730

Let's put this all in perspective. The only way a parent would ever get caught up in this trap is by being reported by a childcare worker or medical personnel. This means that more parents will think twice before seeking medical attention.

The proposed legislation also requires; if a person is convicted of violating this section and probation is granted, the court shall require the following minimum conditions of probation:

1. A mandatory minimum period of probation of 48 months.
2. A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats, and, if appropriate, residence exclusion or stay-away conditions.
1. A Successful completion of either a nonviolent parental education class approved by the probation department or no less than one year of a child abuser's treatment counseling program approved by the probation department. The defendant shall be ordered to begin participation in either the class or the program immediately upon the grant of probation.
2. The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on the defendant's changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive the fees.
3. If the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the defendant shall abstain from the use of drugs or alcohol during the period of probation and shall be subject to random drug testing by his or her probation officer.
4. The court may waive any of the above minimum conditions of probation upon a finding that the condition would not be in the best interests of justice. The court shall state on the record its reasons for any waiver.

This bill, as it is written, will provide a huge influx of cash for those offering parental education classes, treatment counseling programs and require more probation officers to be hired and more business for drug testing facilities. All of these "services" provided at the cost of the accused.

Those who are familiar with our court system know that it is currently next to impossible to get a fair trial. This bill will increase the caseload on the court system and does nothing to provided added protections for children.

In short, this bill is a smoke screen – a band-aid that does nothing but rake good parents over the coals and empty their wallets. You've heard the fraise "As California goes, so goes the nation." If this bill is passed, you can expect to see similar legislation passed in many more states.

Related Articles

• AB 755 Action Alert
• AB 755 Alert Supplement
• Read AB 755 - Corporal punishment
• CA: Spanking Ban
• California News Archive

Labels: AB 755, California, child abuse, legislation

Media falsely reporting spanking ban abandoned

Sacramento—Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D- Mountain View) has, as promised, introduced a bill to ban parents from using physical force in disciplining their children.

AB 755 bans parents from using spanking as discipline for misbehavior.

According to the bill, a parent who spanks their child will be placed on probation for 4 years, would be forced to attend a "nonviolent parental education class" and the child would receive a criminal court protective order "protecting the victim from further acts of violence."

"Media outlets are falsely reporting that the spanking ban has been dropped. In fact, the bill is still a ban on spanking," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"Assemblywoman Lieber has claimed that she is no longer going to ban 'spanking'. This is mere semantics as AB 755 on its face bans the use of force in disciplining a child.

This is a tactic often used by politicians to make their legislation seem benign when in fact it is still just as bad."

"Parents often use a wooden spoon or ruler to spank their children. This legislation actually bans the use of 'a stick, a rod, a switch, a belt'—tools often used by responsible parents in spanking disobedient children," explained England. "As a parent, I am angered that the government is declaring my disobedient child "a victim" and intervening in the raising of my children."

"AB 755 creates a 'rebuttable presumption' that when parents discipline their children, they are abusers," explained Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "The government is basically telling parents that when they use responsible discipline in training their children, they are the criminals. Discipline is used to protect children from disobedient behavior that could harm them. It is appalling that the government is treating parents like criminals when there are dangerous sexual predators on our streets."

"Assemblywoman Lieber is purposely misleading the citizens of California when she claims to have 'abandoned' the spanking ban. And the media have become her accomplices in this deception," stated England. "Make no mistake, AB 755 is a serious attack on parental authority. We call on every responsible parent in California to contact their legislator and urge them to vote against AB 755."

Read AB 755

Karen England
Capitol Resource Institute
1414 K Street
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-1940

Labels: AB 755, California, Capitol Resource Institute, CRI, legislation

Today (2001/03/01) I had the pleasure to take my wife and son to the California state capital. We accompanied a group of homeschooling families that are in Sacramento for the next couple days on group field trips. We took the capital tour together and had the opportunity to watch a session of the state assembly. Though, admittedly, I am not very familiar with our states laws, I am a self-declared minimalist - I believe less government is better in almost every regard.

I had the 'pleasure' all right. There were at least two bills on the table for vote today. One of which specified March second as the 'Nationwide Reading Day' (or something to that effect). Nationwide? From a bill in CA? Amazing. I didn't know we had that authority. What's more, I was impressed to see the number of 'co-authors' for the bill. The total number was in the realm of seventy. Yes seventy. No, you're not reading that incorrectly, and yes, we only have seventy-nine assembly 'persons'. You'll have to excuse those three or four that did not coauthor - I'm sure it wasn't by design. I think they were all deathly ill, attending to funerals or otherwise incapable of being there for the opportunity to co-sponsor such important legislation. Yes, that was sarcasm; but unfortunately, no, I'm not making it up.

It's important legislation like this that keeps me up at night. And rightfully so.

And that's not all. Special consideration was made for the individuals (and families of) that lost their lives in the driving incident in Santa Barbara last week. With all due respects, the respect and 'moment of silence' are perfectly satisfactory, but it should be understood that it is little more than political posturing - of course. Especially when this 'moment of silence' was followed quickly by statements about how we need to work harder on handgun regulation - where did that come from? It was an AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. No weapons of any kind were involved. But some politicians obviously felt it necessary to take that opportunity to speak out about their need to stifle your second ammendment rights: over an auto accident.

After some more ludicrous discussion, the assembly came to a discussion about colon cancer being the second largest cause of death nationally - or something to that extent. I wasn't sure exactly what the point of this discussion was, since they brought up several means of detecting colon cancer and how 'simple' it was to remove, if found in time. Great. There was discussion about how the legislators should have an 'awareness campaign' within their districts, but I don't think there was any political force behind it. If people don't want to go to doctors are they going to force them? Does the assembly hope to author a bill that would require Californians to get a rectal exam ever year? What was the point of this?

My concern in this is that within the short session today (it couldn't have been more than an hour and ten minutes) they managed to bring up both firearm legislation and something to do with people dying from colon cancer. Why? I think they should instead spend their time and energy fighting the greater evil of our state: stupidity. I think that if you look back at each murder, accidental death and 'near death experience' throughout the world, much less the country or 'tiny' state of California, you'll find that the number one cause of death and accidents is *stupidity*. Where is the drive to educate people on common sense, or to eliminate the widespread following that stupidity claims? In fact, stupidity is so abundant that several of the assembly 'persons' were obviously infected. Where is the call to arms against it now? I think you'll hold your breath a long time if you wait for it.

Remember, you won't always be in the majority; Please subscribe.

Regards,

Shawn K. Hall

Labels: California, legislation