MISSED THE BOYCOTT

Wow, that Monday post about farmers boycotting the sale barn with their calves and therefore indicating a boycott of the midterms sure got some response. 

                  May I suggest this is a teachable moment?  Nowhere in that post--please go back and read it--did I encourage anyone to boycott and I certainly didn't say I was going to boycott.  For the record, I'm not going to boycott--so the handful who agreed that boycotting was good, I'm not your champion.

                  As an English major and winner of numerous Intercollegiate Debate Tournaments, may I suggest that one of the biggest problems in our country is jumping to conclusions due to impatient and incomplete reading.  The entire and only point of that post was to inform folks that in our area farmers are boycotting selling their calves at the sale barn in direct frustration over President Trump's subsidized below-market lean trim imports. 

                  Fact:  farmers are refusing to sell their calves, expecting prices to rebound once the 90-day order expires.  Fact:  prices dropped 10 percent immediately upon announcing the executive order.

                  I only made the suggestion that farmers willing to boycott the sale barn may boycott the midterms.  That's it.  That's all.  I did not encourage anyone to boycott.  I did not say I was going to boycott.  I didn't take a position on whether boycotting was good or bad. 

                  But many of you crucified me for being a boycott advocate.  I could engage in some vituperative invectives toward those who jumped to outlandish conclusions that I was boycotting or advocating such a strategy.  But I'll simply say, as a society, all of us need to take a deep breath and really, really, really listen to words. 

                  Several took issue that I wasn't happy with Trump's subsequent effort to curry favor with farmers by issuing another executive order (EO) Sept. 4 titled "promoting fair competition in livestock markets and expanding market access for American meat producers."  Dear folks, I've been in very high circles in the swamp in the last two years. 

                  Nearly every section of that EO makes great platitudes we freedom lovers can appreciate but then ends with this phrase:  "consistent with applicable law."  In the short order, it uses that phrase five times.  Do you know what that means?  It means nothing changes.  He's not advocating any law changes.  Nothing substantive.  And nobody is going to launch a direct market or custom slaughterhouse business on the strength of an EO.  We need freedom from laws.  We need food emancipation.  Period. 

                  And every change subject to "consistent with applicable law" means nothing substantive gets changes.  Dear people, it's smoke and mirrors.  It's bull hockey.  It's meaningless.  Read the EO; such an opportunity to really get some issues on the table, and every issue ultimately must be "consistent with applicable law."  That's the problem.  It's been the problem.  Such a boundary means all the issues will stay on the playing field; the big four stay in control.  The agency capture continues unabated. 

                  The EO is full of bureaucratic jargon:  "increase resources, staffing, and investigative capacity."  Does anyone think adding bureaucrats will give us more freedom?  Please tell me how.  It goes on like this:  "The Secretary shall review existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law" . . . .  The Brazilian-owned company JBS was the largest contributor to Trump's inauguration party.  Crises like the current beef situation gives cover for big players to further protect themselves from competition.  I guarantee representatives from those companies were in the war room where this EO was written.

                  In another portion of the EO, after once again enlisting "consistent with applicable law" it adds he wants to remove inspections "that do not advance essential food safety needs."  If you think that means freedom, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  The EO ends with section 4, General Provisions:  "Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof . . ."  Allowing direct producer-consumer commerce outside bureaucratic permission absolutely does affect the authority of the executive department.  Any step toward freedom reduces the authority of the regulators.

                  And then it goes on to delineate:  "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."  Dear folks, freedom does not require appropriations.  Freedom is what the current "applicable law" has destroyed.  But they got a whole slew of farmers to go stand behind the president, smile for the camera, and promote this EO as the best thing since toilet paper.  Bull hockey. 

                  So two things:  read carefully and don't assume things beyond what is said or written.  Take it only in context and only to the extent the language allows.  Number two:  examine the language close enough to find the loopholes.  I'm still wanting Trump to issue a Food Emancipation Proclamation.  That would do everything many of us hoped his EO would say, but it would do it precisely and courageously; it would decapitate federal tyranny.  It's hard to get excited about clear clever-speak doublespeak.   

                  What does "consistent with applicable law" mean if not "we'll continue doing business the way we've always done it, except maybe with some more bureaucrats and regulations?"