Preppers and Patriots Expo

 

Preppers and Patriots Expo Will Feature Wood Gas Powered Pickup Truck

 

A pickup truck powered by burning wood will be featured at The Preppers and Patriots Expo August 16 and 17 at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel, Glenstone and Kearney in Springfield, Mo. according to event organizer Mike Slack. Slack said, “Doug Brethower, an experimenter with biomass and supporter of sensible alternative energy will display his pickup at the Expo and will speak on wood gas as an alternative to gasoline. Wood gas was used in both Europe and Asia during World War II and a similar truck was featured on the cover of Mother Earth News magazine last year. Doug is one of  approximately 30 speakers over the two days covering self-reliance and disaster preparedness topics. We are lucky to have several quality speakers both from Missouri and out of state, and many quality vendor exhibitors.”

 

Another vehicle to be displayed at the expo will be The Ultimate Bug Out Vehicle, a recreational vehicle adapted for preparedness by John Davis, Missouri and Iowa coordinator for the American Prepper Network. The RV includes  a trailer which can show anyone from a single person to over 10 people to survive for an extended period of time.  Davis will also  display different types of bug out bags, prepper supplies, prepper field hospital and other items.

 

The Expo will be held from 9 am to 6 pm both days, with $10 admission for the entire weekend. Children under the age of 12 are free. For more information the website is Preppers and Patriots Expo | 2 Days That Can Save Your Life and the phone number is 417-264-2435

 

Preppers and Patriots Expo — Springfield, MO — August 16 and 17

 

The Preppers and Patriots Expo is scheduled for August 16 and 17 at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel, Glenstone and Kearney in Springfield, Mo. according to event organizer Mike Slack. Slack said, “the Expo slogan is two days that can save your life, and  we are doing our best to live up to that standard. We’ll have approximately 30 speakers over the two days covering self-reliance and disaster preparedness topics. We are lucky to have several quality speakers both from Missouri and out of state, and many quality vendor exhibitors.”

 

The Expo will be held from 9 am to 6 pm both days, with $10 admission for the entire weekend. Children under the age of 12 are free.

 

Topics include man-made disasters such as terrorist threats, social collapse and nuclear reactor meltdown; natural disasters such as tornadoes, earthquakes and pandemics; and economic collapse which could require use of precious metals or barter items.

 

 

Speakers will cover alternative energy such as solar power, wind power, making alcohol and biodiesel, wood gas and small steam engines for electricity generation. Others will cover water filtration, long-term storage food, survival in the wilderness, home prepared antibiotics and medicines and how to suture a wound when no doctor is available.

 

 

Talk show host Joyce Riley of The Power Hour will speak on veterans health issues, Gulf War Syndrome and “what the government doesn’t want you to know” about your healthcare. Talk show host  John More of The Liberty Man will discuss climate change and talk show host Mike Evans of America’s Voice Now will discuss restoring liberty. Mike Nocks of White Harvest Seed Company will speak on heirloom seed and genetically modified organisms, while organic guru Lynette Pate will discuss food as a fuel for the body. Other speakers will be announced soon Slack said. For more information call 417-264-2435.

 

Right to Farm State Persecuting Small Farmer

 

Passionate Farmer Takes On Her Government Harassers

 

With her life’s dream of being a small family farmer in Virginia, Martha Boneta obtained 64 acres in Fauquier County, Va., in 2006 to raise vegetables, herbs, raw honey, eggs, and host small animals. Little did she know that a birthday party with eight 10-year-old girls would trigger zealous county regulators who saw the party as an event needing special exception permits and required a hearing that would impose fees.

Thinking she had all the right commercial permits and licenses, Boneta was still threatened with $5,000 per day fines despite Virginia being a right-to-farm state, where local governments are considered unable to use zoning laws to bring nuisance suits for customary farm operations.

Soon enough, it became clear that there were outside interests who seemed connected to county government, the IRS and even her mortgage company who wanted to force her off her land, and she decided to fight back. (RELATED: IRS Inspector General Probes Whether Agency Abused Virginia Tea Partier)

As citizens rallied behind her passionate defense of farming and property rights, she found her way to “Fox And Friends,” where a national following continued to build. Pressure mounted against government harassment and this month with her passionate, determined civic leadership, the Boneta bill was signed into law by Virginia’s governor, providing farmers greater protections for customary activities at small family farms.

Serving as a model for other citizens feeling targeted and harassed by government, Boneta says, “Never give up because our freedoms, our liberties, our property rights are fundamental to us all.” Even at great personal cost, connecting with other citizens and groups gave Boneta courage that most don’t know is there for them too.

To learn more about Boneta’s Liberty Farm, go here.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/20/passionate-farmer-takes-on-her-government-harassers/#ixzz387CCDlI2

A Radio Show and Debate on Missouri Right to Farm

From Missouri Rural Crisis:

 

KBIA, Mid-Missouri Public Radio, to Discuss CAFOs This Monday
Let’s Not Let Pro-CAFO Academics Dominate the “Debate”
KBIA, Mid-Missouri Public Radio, will be discussing CAFOs on their Intersection program at 2PM this Monday, the 21st.

Ray Massey, MU Commercial Ag Department, Teng Lim, MU Extension, and John Lory, MU Plant Sciences will be discussing Concentrated Animal Feeding Opertions.

They need to hear from family farmers and concerned consumers about the negative impacts of corporate-controlled, industrial livestock operations on family farms, the marketplace, consumers and the environment.

Please call-in to the program on Monday, the 21st at 2PM by calling(573) 882-8925.

You can live stream KBIA here: http://kbia.org/


Rhonda Perry to Debate a Missouri Farmers Care Lawyer at a League of Women Voters Event This Thursday–Please Join Us!
Thursday, July 24th
Friends Room, Columbia Public Library

100 W. Broadway, Columbia, MO
6:30-8:30
Rhonda will be debating Brent Haden, a Columbia lawyer, at a League of Women Voters’ event at the Columbia Public Library this Thursday, the 24th.

Brent is representing Missouri Farmers Care, the group leading the charge for the so-called “Right to Farm”, Amendment 1, which will be on the ballot on Tuesday, August 5th.

Missouri Farmers Care members include Cargill, Monsanto and Lathrop and Gage (the law-firm representing Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods).  

 

Great News!!! Joplin Globe Against Amendment 1 in Missouri!

Every now and again, right action actually is taken by a mainstream news source. It’s a real joy when the happens….:)

 

Here’s the Joplin Globe’s editorial on Amendment 1:

 

July 13, 2014

Our View: Vote no on Amendment 1

Proponents of Amendment 1 — the Right to Farm Act — have not made their case. We’ve met with advocates of this amendment to the Missouri constitution and listened to their arguments, but we don’t believe they have adequately answered the central question: Who is it protecting, and from what?

We understand that many small farms are struggling, but threats to their livelihood aren’t going to go away because of the vague wording in the proposed amendment. In fact, this amendment could hurt them.

Darvin Bentlage, a Barton County farmer, made a compelling case in this newspaper that what’s threatening small, independent family farms is big ag — corporate ag — which is what some critics think this amendment is designed to protect.

“I remember our right to farm when we didn’t have to sign a grower’s contract to buy seed, a document telling us what we could and couldn’t do with what we grew on our farm,” Bentlage argued. “I remember when family farmers could load their own feeder pigs in their truck and go to the local auction and sell their livestock in an open and competitive market. So who’s taken this right to farm away from us? It is the same corporate factory farm supporters, corporations and organizations that have pushed this constitutional amendment through the Missouri Legislature.”

The ballot question asks, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranging practices shall not be infringed?”

Infringed by whom? What practices? And who qualifies as a farmer in Missouri?

Smithfield Foods, for example, owner of Premium Standard Farms? How about Tyson Foods? Both of those are Fortune 500 companies that count their revenue in the billions.

Which Tyson practice “shall not be infringed,” the one that left more than 100,000 dead fish in Clear Creek this spring?

It’s Missouri that may need protection from big ag.

Proponents of the amendment point to environmental and animal rights organizations — “radical, out-of-state groups,” they call them — but most of the family farmers we know don’t fear laws aimed at protecting Missouri’s water and air. They already behave as good stewards of the environment because they live on the land they farm and drink the water from their own wells, and they treat their livestock humanely.

We suspect critics of the amendment are on to something when they say this is a measure designed to protect corporate agriculture rather than the traditional family farm.

In fact, we’d be better off making sure that public ownership of water, for example, and the right to clean water and clean air are enshrined in the state constitution.

That’s an amendment we can get behind, but we can’t get behind Amendment 1.

 

Exploiting the Poor for Fascism- Monsanto Push on El Salvador

Back in the days of the cave man, when I was growing up, we were taught definitions of socialism and fascism as part of our education. Today, many people can’t distinguish fascism from communism, and communism from socialism. My guess is that it is intentional. What we are actually running under is international communism which has a huge helping of fascism evident as a helpful identifier.

Also, all of this aid tied to corporations that are in business with the federal government helps illustrate the overarching fascism. El Salvador versus Monsanto is an excellent example of this:

Monsanto and Foreign Aid: Forcing El Salvador’s Hand

 

 

U.S. foreign aid is expected to promote poverty alleviation and facilitate developmental growth in impoverished countries. Yet, corporations and special interest groups have permeated even the most well-intended of U.S. policies.

(Photo: sakhorn38 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

El Salvador is a recent example of corporate domination in U.S. foreign aid. The United States will withhold the Millennium Challenge Compact aid deal, approximately $277 million in aid, unlessEl Salvador purchases genetically-modified seeds from biotech giant, Monsanto.[1] The Millennium Challenge Corporation is “a U.S. foreign aid agency that was created by the U.S. Congress in January 2004,”[2] according to Sustainable Pulse, and serves as a conduit for foreign aid funds. MCC’s unethical aid conditions would force El Salvador to purchase controversial seeds from the American biotech corporation instead of purchasing non-GMO seeds from the country’s local farmers[3] – an action that would have negative effects on El Salvador’s agricultural industry in addition to presenting serious health and environmental risks.

The conditional foreign aid from MCC is an attempt to break into El Salvador’s non-GMO agricultural sector and exploit the food market. Because El Salvador has high food insecurity, it imports 85% of its food. This allows U.S. foreign aid organizations to take advantage of the dire need for their own monetary gain. The United States used similar aid policies in Haiti to force open Haiti’s agricultural market for U.S. food products – effectively destroying Haiti’s agricultural economy and creating an overreliance on food aid.[4]

However, at least one ranking individual is pushing back against predatory aid in El Salvador. Ricardo Navarro, President of the El Salvadoran Center for Appropriate Technologies, states, “I would like to tell the U.S. ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,” and hopes that the El Salvadoran government does not bend to U.S. pressure.[5]

El Salvador recently banned glyphosate and other chemicals in September 2013 – at the same time the MCC stopped the aid package process until “’specific’ economic and environmental reforms were made.”[6] Glyphosate herbicide is a fundamental chemical for Monsanto’s genetically-modified crops, but poses serious toxicity concerns.[7] As a result, El Salvador appears to be the most recent victim of U.S. ‘trade wars’ against countries that oppose Monsanto.[8] France – who was working to ban a Monsanto crop – was “requested to be ‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and genetically modified foods.”[9] Hungary and even the Vatican are also targeted by U.S. foreign policy for being anti-GMO, according to documents released by Wikileaks.[10] Despite Monsanto’s GMOcrops that pose serious health and environmental risks, U.S. officials continue to push Monsanto’s agenda in domestic and foreign policies.

Due to powerful lobbying by corporate giants like Monsanto, in addition to the shipping and agricultural industries, the U.S. government’s foreign aid program has become an encroaching business. Just when the U.S. foreign aid program couldn’t appear to be more corrupt, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, U.S. Congress, and Monsanto have raised the bar.

Notes

[1] “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds,” RT, June 10, 2014, accessed June 11, 2014, http://rt.com/usa/165128-us-pressures-salvador-monsanto-gmo/.; “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds,” Sustainable Pulse, June 8, 2014, accessed June 11, 2014,http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/06/08/u-s-government-ties-el-salvador-usd-277-m-aid-package-monsantos-gmo-seeds/#.U5hCmRBCxGN.

[2] “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds.”

[3] Ibid; “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds.”

[4] Haiti Grassroots Watch, “HAITI: Aid or Trade? The Nefarious Effects of U.S. Policies,” GlobalResearch, November 6, 2013, accessed June 11, 2014,http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-aid-or-trade-the-nefarious-effects-of-u-s-policies/5357204.

[5] “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds.”

[6] “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds.”

[7] Ibid.

[8] Anthony Gucciardi, “Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO crops,” Natural Society, January 3, 2012, accessed June 11, 2014,http://naturalsociety.com/us-start-trade-wars-with-nations-opposed-to-monsanto-gmo-crops/.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Allison Crawford, “Monsanto Launches ‘Trade Wars’ on Opposing Nations,” Health Wire, September 12, 2012, accessed June 11, 2014,http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/food/77.

 

Lt Governor and Several Representatives ask DNR to Extend Comment Period

Many regular listeners of  The Power Hour are aware of this new “Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan” being enacted in nearly every state in the nation. Here in Missouri, we have received from very positive action from some of our elected representatives. Following is a press release about this action and the pdf of the letter sent to the Director of the Missouri DNR by Lt Governor Peter Kinder and other reps:

                                            July 3, 2014

              

Lt. Gov. Kinder, Legislative Leaders
seek more time on DNR water plan

Letter to director cites need for more public hearings
JEFFERSON CITY – Lt. Governor Peter Kinder today delivered a letter to Sara Parker Pauley, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, seeking an extension of 60-day public comment period regarding Missouri’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan. The comment period is slated to end Tuesday, July 8.
The letter, which also was signed by Sens. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, and Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, and Rep. Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, cited concerns about “the potential impact of this plan on agriculture, private property rights and land use in our state.” They asked that the DNR extend the comment period 30 days and conduct additional public hearings around the state.
The Nonpoint Source Management Plan is the state’s attempt to address nonpoint sources of water pollution and align its water management with new, more stringent federal EPA regulations.
The letter from Kinder and the legislative leaders said “it is incumbent on the DNR to ensure Missourians understand the potential impact of these changes while allowing those affected to fully comment on the plan.”
Lt. Governor Kinder issued the following statement on the issue:
“Few people are aware of this shift in management practices proposed by the DNR. The potential impact on private property rights, land use and agriculture are profound. We want to make sure Missouri doesn’t cede to bureaucrats in Washington control over how we manage our resources.”
###

 

Letter to dnr director Pauley.

Amendment 1 is Destructive to Independent Agriculture

I was asked to do an op ed piece on Amendment for a Missouri newspaper, it is copied below. Please feel free to spread it about and re-post at your will. We need to stop this change to our Constitution!

by Doreen Hannes

Amendment 1, on the Aug. 5 ballot in Missouri, is deceptive right from the first sentence. The amendment was supposed to be on the ballot in November but has been moved up to the August primary election, likely to minimize opportunity for those who see the danger of the amendment to educate voters on the issue.

Originally, the proposed amendment specifically protected “modern practices and agricultural technology.” That means factory-style farming of livestock and biotech, particularly genetically modified plants and animals. Yes, animals. Today there are pigs crossed with mice, spider genes inserted into goats and human genes inserted into cattle. They are all patented, and just as you cannot tell GMO corn from heirloom corn by looking at it, you cannot tell genetically modified animals have other species of DNA in them.

The entities pushing amendment 1 are large agri-biz and biotech companies, including Monsanto, owner of patents on genetically modified life forms, which is experienced in destroying farmers’ livelihoods by taking them to court over crops contaminated by Monsanto’s seed, and Cargill, who helped bring even more illegal immigration by dumping cheap GMO corn into Mexico’s market and destroying the small Mexican farmer’s ability to make a living. Another biotech organization that supports the amendment is Syngenta, which looks to secure more ground for its patented life forms. Farm Bureau (even though it has among its membership some of the best people in the world) is arguably the biggest proponent of free-trade agreements, which destroy the ability of American farmers to sell their products in an open and honest market at a livable price.

Several of us who fought in the legislature to stop this wrong-headed proposal from becoming a constitutional amendment offered a substitute that would actually benefit Missouri family farmers. The proponents of amendment 1 would not hear of it. They said it wouldn’t protect their “constituents.” Here is the substitute offered:

“That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in direct trade with consumers shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural practices that secure independent family farm’s ability to save seed, preserve livestock bloodlines, or impede their access to market.”

The supposed “right to farm” amendment is being sold as a way to mitigate the effects on agriculture of “radical animal rights activists.” While the radical animal rights movement is dangerous, its proponents have not consolidated agriculture and negotiated away the family farm in order to line the pockets of multi-national corporations, bureaucrats and lobbyists. The major pushers for Amendment 1 have certainly done so.

Should this change to our constitution pass, courts, lawyers and bureaucrats must define “farming” and “ranching.” If you’re harmed by a factory-farm, you won’t have much recourse to sue. GMOs, which are increasingly being outlawed in other countries, will be unstoppable, and vertical integration (quite possibly under Chinese ownership) will take over Missouri’s family farms and reduce them to a fond memory.

If you want to save the family farm, vote NO on Amendment 1.

 

 

 

 

Norway Study on Glyphosate and Missouri’s Amendment 1- “Right to Farm”

If anyone wants one more reason to have GMO food labeled, a very solid study out of Norway shows Round Up accumulation in treated crops to be excessive when ready for consumption.

Should Amendment 1 pass in Missouri, Monsanto’s home state, there will be even more uncontrolled GMO proliferation and spraying of Round Up and 2-4d. Amendment 1 masquerades as a protection against animal rights activists, but it will provide for complete factory farming in the State with no ability to constrain it left to the citizens.

Here are a few questions about Amendment 1:

•If it is to halt the animal rights agenda, then why hasn’t the legislature simply passed legislation to prohibit the most extreme of their activities?

•If it is to protect agriCULTURE as opposed to agriINDUSTRY, then why was the original wording specifically tailored to protect “modern technology”?

•Since we, and all other states, already have statute that prevents nuisance suits against existing farms and ranches, why do we need to change our Constitution? Do we have to protect our right to use an indoor flush toilet in the Constitution as well? Isn’t enumerating every single right of man a little beyond the pale?

•Additionally, who is going to define the terms farm, farmer, rancher, ranching, farming? Regulators, courts and lawyers…Do we trust them?

If you think protecting Monsanto, one of the proponents of Amendment 1, should be part of Missouri’s Constitution, then you should vote for this proposed amendment.

Read this study if you are still of the mindset that Round Up is a good thing. Think about telling your grandchildren that you voted to have them sterilized by the food supply because you thought eating herbicides was good business.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

As with everything political, you have got to look at the interests of those who are the major supporters of a proposed action. Cargill, Monsanto, Missouri Corn and Soy Growers, and the biggest proponent for destructive free trade agreements, Missouri Farm Bureau, are the major supporters of Amendment 1. Many members of Farm Bureau are the best people you may ever meet! Farm Bureau even does some things that are actually positive for real farmers. Amendment 1 is just NOT one of those positive actions.

Study Indicates Glyphosate (Round Up) Doubles Chance of Lymphoma

With Amendment 1 on the ballot here in Missouri for August 5th, this is terrifically pertinent information. NO independent studies of long term exposure or ingestion have been done in the US!

Study: Glyphosate Doubles Risk of Lymphoma

Scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer have found what appears to be a strong link between pesticide exposure and a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Analyzing 44 individual research projects published since 1980, the scientists, writing in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, said that people exposed to the weed killer glyphosate, marked by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup, had double the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Those exposed to 2,4-D, another potent weed killer marketed by Dow Chemical, were 40 percent more likely to develop this disease.

The authors, scientists who work in the IARC Section of Environment and Radiation in Lyon, France, theorized that these pesticides were causing genetic mutations in white blood cells, thereby weakening the body’s immune system and ability to fight off disease.

Previous studies have observed that farmers with exposure to 2,4-D have experienced impaired immune systems.

Last month, EWG reported that research by scientists at the Arctic University of Norway had detected “extreme levels” of glyphosate on genetically engineered soybeans.

Crop scientists have genetically engineered soy to survive blasts of glyphosate so that farmers can use this chemical to get rid of weeds near crops. Over time these weeds have become resistant to glyphosate and grown hardier. In turn some farmers have resorted to spraying more of the pesticide to try to kill the tougher “super weeds.”

Genetic engineering’s early promise to reduce pesticide use now seems empty. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reported that herbicide use doubled—from 62 million pounds in 1996 to 128 million pounds in 2012. Glyphosate now represents more than 83 percent of the chemical pesticides used in the U.S. annually.

The IARC study was published April 23, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was considering approving GE seeds of corn and soybeans engineered to withstand 2,4-D, a suspected carcinogen. If the EPA approves the new GE seeds and if 2,4-D is used to kill weeds on some of the 170 million acres of corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. annually, the USDA estimates that 2,4-D use is likely to triple, dramatically increasing people’s exposure to a pesticide that may cause cancer.

How can consumers reduce their exposures to these pesticides? When we eat GE foods, we are taking a dose of pesticides with them. Right now, we can’t tell which foods are genetically engineered. We have to guess. EWG believes people have the right to know which foods are genetically engineered. What can you do? Tell your elected representatives to support legislation to label GE foods.

Note from Food Revolution Network: Additional tools for reducing pesticide and GE food exposure are the Environmental Working Group’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce and the Institute for Responsible Technology’s non-GMO shopping guide.

Previous Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers