Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans Are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds

by Rand Paul

  Or so they thought.

  The Dollarhites carried on with their daily business until January 2010, when the USDA returned. The family received a phone call from a Kansas City–based USDA inspector who requested to have a meeting with the family regarding their rabbitry. The official informed them that refusing to meet with him would be a huge mistake and advised them to have an attorney present. During the meeting they were advised to cease their rabbit business, and if they did so, they would only face up to $1,000 in fines. The USDA agent explained that they should expect a four-to six-week time frame for the report to be filed, and then they could expect to hear the USDA’s decision.

  The Dollarhites followed the advice of the agent and immediately closed their business. They traded all of their stock, cages, and equipment for other agricultural items and they made changes to their website, explaining that they were no longer in the rabbit business. But after eight weeks had passed, they had still not received any sort of notification from the USDA.

  So John Dollarhite became proactive, calling the agency in order to find out its verdict. USDA enforcement specialist Roxanne Folk received John’s call. Dollarhite said she was very short with him. Folk told Mr. Dollarhite that their file was sitting on her desk and she had not finished reviewing it. She added harshly that they should expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and that the USDA was going to make “an example” out of them. When John asked what she meant by that, Folk stated that they would simply have to wait for notification from her, then she promptly hung up the phone.

  The Dollarhites did not hear from the USDA for an entire year.

  Then in April 2011 the Dollarhites received a certified letter in the mail claiming that they had violated the Animal Welfare Act. Their fine? $3.9 million! But the USDA, in its benevolent mercy, informed the family that the agency was willing to settle for a payment of $90,643 if paid by May 23, 2011—a mere month later.

  So what exactly could the Dollarhites have possibly done to deserve such a draconian fine?

  They had violated some mystery law that prohibits the selling of more than $500 worth of rabbits within a one-year period. Even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law and did not sell their rabbits to other states—the business was carefully conducted on their private and spacious residence and the rabbits were kept in large, clean, and well-maintained cages—their business was still subjected to the grasp of bureaucracy run amok.

  At the advice of their attorney, the Dollarhites have told their story of injustice to anyone who will listen, from the media to members of Congress. After several Senate and congressional offices, along with countless citizens, exerted pressure, the Dollarhites received a further reply from the USDA. The agency informed them that if they agreed to an inspection of their property to verify that they no longer had rabbits, the USDA would drop the fine without penalty. The Dollarhites immediately agreed and two USDA officials promptly arrived for the inspection. The inspection lasted no longer than seven minutes and the inspectors said they were satisfied with what they saw.

  Just when the Dollarhites thought this tragedy was over, the government struck again. On June 22, 2011, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA stating that the family must agree to never again own any breeding animals of any kind, thus disqualifying them from ever obtaining a USDA license. This was not part of the inspection agreement as had been discussed previously. So in July the Dollarhites responded by saying that they had cleared the inspection and agreed not to raise rabbits for resale. But they stood up for their constitutional rights and refused to be treated differently than any other American citizen.

  This was government bullying defined: Bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to dictate what type of livestock or pets the Dollarhites could or could not own.

  Upon receiving the Dollarhites’ letter, Bernadette Juarez, deputy director of the USDA, called and demanded that they sign the previous agreement. This agreement included a clause that banned them from owning pets for the next five years. In response to this imperious phone call, the Dollarhites’ attorney requested that Juarez submit the agency’s requirements and requests in writing. Juarez agreed to do so by the close of business that day. To this day and as of this writing—well over a year later—the Dollarhites have yet to receive any written statement from the USDA.

  The Dollarhites currently live in a perpetual state of bureaucrat-enforced limbo. This entire scenario proves once again that these arrogant bureaucratic agencies are a constant and wildly unpredictable threat to our personal liberties and constitutional rights.

  After getting to know the Dollarhites and their story, I’ve worked feverishly with other Capitol Hill leaders to make sure no American ever has to go through what they did. I’ve introduced legislation such as the REINS Act to help return the oversight of these regulatory agencies to Congress, which is our constitutional duty to begin with. We introduced legislation to prevent USDA agents from carrying weapons. The last thing we need is an armed bunny Gestapo harassing family farmers across the country.

  The USDA’s lust for power and control over our personal and private lives is unjust and un-American. We Americans won’t stand for it.

  21

  How Can We Solve the Problem?

  “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

  —GROUCHO MARX

  I believe that the fight for food and health freedom is one of the most important battles our country and the liberty movement will face over the next decade.

  It used to be simple. Food was grown locally. Methods were similar to those of modern organic farms. “Fresh” was easy to find, chemicals were rare, and processing was minimal.

  For many reasons, this is the ideal method of food delivery and ingestion for human beings. This is the way we are supposed to produce and consume food. Still, the old-fashioned concept of family farms and local agriculture isn’t necessarily practical for a nation of 300 million people spread across three thousand miles of land.

  People want solutions. Those who enjoy and have come to depend on raw milk want it to be legal for consenting consumers to purchase. I share their concern, but we must also be realistic in our goals. We cannot nor should we expect every Safeway or Kroger in America to stock raw milk. In fact, mass-produced raw milk probably would not be safe.

  But the milk you buy from the Amish farmer in the next county? Or the milk from the Maryland farm that offers next-day delivery to Washington, D.C.? Big difference.

  My father-in-law Hilton Ashby grew up on a little farm in Lewisburg, Kentucky, drinking raw milk straight from the cow (you can ask him about how the milk tasted when the cow ate too many onions). Today, at eighty-one, Hilton has survived pretty well drinking raw milk.

  And this has been the way most Americans have consumed milk for as long as there has been an America. It has always been our choice. We should still have that choice.

  These days our huge government isn’t too big on choice. As of this writing, a major American city is contemplating banning sugary drinks over sixteen ounces. Why sixteen ounces? Who knows. The point is, the government inherently thinks it knows whether you should be allowed to purchase sixteen ounces, eighteen ounces, two liters—you get the picture. Our government believes it must police every vitamin and supplement Americans take. It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that the government thinks it should be the sole determiner of whether or not Americans can drink raw milk.

  There are two major problems with the FDA and USDA today. The first is their inflated and arrogant sense of jurisdiction—what they think they should be able to control. Secondly, these agencies have SWAT teams and undercover agents capable of conducting nighttime raids on private property owners, often to flex their bureaucratic muscle and exercise their control.

  Both problems are unacceptable. I’ve introduced several bills to rein in the government’s war on natural
foods, supplements, raw milk, and those who grow, sell, or consume these products.

  I have introduced a bill to make the sale of raw milk legal throughout the United States. I must admit, I don’t drink raw milk. My staff often laughs at my negative reaction to it, and in explaining that reaction, I’ve told stories of my grandparents’ dairy in Pennsylvania. The milk my grandparents sold was local, fresh, and pasteurized. For them, it was simply the most foolproof way to deliver milk to a large population.

  So that’s what I grew up drinking. But many Americans have been raised drinking raw milk, including many of my constituents in Kentucky. I choose not to drink raw milk, and that’s my choice. But those who want to should have that choice too. That’s the entire point. You don’t have to be an advocate for raw milk, or agree that it is inherently superior, to be an advocate for consumer choice, business choice, and farmer choice.

  Another bill I’ve introduced is called the Health Freedom Act, which would protect vitamin and supplement manufacturers from some of the current unreasonable government regulations. The burden of proof of wrongdoing should lie not with private business but with the government. As the Constitution demands, if the government wants to raid your office, shut down your business, and harass you and your customers, it should have to prove its case to a judge first.

  An interesting aspect of working in the Senate is a senator’s unique ability to affect day-to-day debate, even as a freshman member like myself who is known for often holding minority views.

  None of the bills I have mentioned in this chapter could pass through the current Congress. We are well short of the necessary defenders of liberty in the Senate to pass such legislation. In the House, this means that my bills and issues would not see the light of day. They would never be debated. No floor action would be taken, no votes held, no advancement of the issues we care about.

  But in the U.S. Senate, one senator can stand up and say, “Stop.” I can offer amendments and insist on their consideration. Now, this power is not absolute, nor should it be—my colleagues can essentially run over me if they are willing to invest the necessary time to do so. But such blocking by other senators would often take the better part of a week or more, because of complicated Senate rules—rules that I learned, and insisted my staff learn, from the moment I arrived in Washington.

  This is exactly how I fired the first legislative shot across the bow of the FDA and their deplorable police-state tactics.

  In the summer of 2012, I blocked an FDA-related bill in order to force a discussion and a vote on an amendment to rein in the agency. My amendment was designed to address the rogue nature and tyrannical tactics of agencies like the FDA, as demonstrated by the stories I’m sharing with you in this book.

  I think most Americans are troubled by the notion of armed FDA agents raiding peaceful Amish farmers for the “crime” of selling milk directly from the cow. Unfortunately, this is not the only assault on freedom we’ve seen coming from the Food and Drug Administration.

  My amendment had three parts.

  First, it attempted to stop the FDA’s overzealous regulation of vitamins, food, and supplements. It also addressed the fact that the FDA has been in the censorship business for years. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech, and this should include vitamin and supplement manufacturers, who have every right to advertise beneficial health information, whether the FDA approves of it or not.

  Major corporations who manufacture vitamins and supplements are often able to advertise certain health benefits. Walk into any health food or vitamin store and you can find shelves full of products promising all sorts of things beneficial to our physical well-being.

  But what about the small businesses? What about those who sell and promote natural foods and supplements, products that are widely known to have certain health benefits, but the FDA doesn’t think these businesses should be allowed to advertise these benefits?

  For millions of Americans suffering from a wide range of diseases or other health care problems, the FDA has regularly denied information regarding the therapeutic benefits of using dietary supplements. This is information Americans are entitled to know.

  In their infinite wisdom, the FDA has even tried to protect Americans from Cheerios. Yes, that’s right—in 2009, the FDA told the Cheerios manufacturer General Mills to cease and desist publicizing studies that showed eating the cereal may help lower cholesterol. Lawyer Mark Senak, who works regularly with pharmaceutical companies that are trying to bring new drugs to market, discussed this incident on his Eye on FDA blog (eyeonfda.com): “The FDA issued a Warning Letter to General Mills because of the promotional claims on a box of Cheerios. Here is what the FDA said—‘Based on claims made on your product’s label [the box], we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Wheat Grain Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease’ [emphasis my own]. I bet you didn’t know that if you ate Cheerios.”

  The FDA’s dictum against Cheerios did not stick, but the absurdity of the agency, in the minds of many, certainly did. As Senak put it: “Speaking for myself, I don’t think this type of action helps re-establish the FDA’s credibility.”

  Currently, the FDA also makes it illegal for sellers of prune juice and similar juices to advertise that their product helps relieve constipation. Natural News is a good source for keeping track of the FDA’s outrageous behavior. Reported Natural News in 2011: Wyldewood Cellars, a Kansas-based producer and distributor of elderberry juice, is the latest target of the agency, which recently sent U.S. marshals to the company’s winery in Mulvane to confiscate the “unapproved drug… John Brewer, co-founder of Wyldewood, says that after receiving the initial FDA warning letter, his company hired a consultant familiar with FDA regulations to help his company reword their product descriptions. After making the appropriate changes, and clarifying that the elderberry products in question were supplements, Brewer says his company had done what it needed to in order to be in compliance. ‘We haven’t heard anything from [the FDA] since,’ he told reporters.”

  Natural News describes how what happened to Wyldewood Cellars is a recurring theme: “This tactic, of course, has become all too common in recent years. A company receives a warning letter from the FDA, makes the appropriate changes, never hears anything further from the FDA, and out of nowhere gets raided… ‘You think you are doing things correctly, and there hasn’t been any word, and all of a sudden you get this,’ said Brewer.”

  Maybe a little prune juice surreptitiously added to FDA employee coffee mugs would loosen up their regulations?

  My amendment would have stopped the FDA from censoring claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. It also would have stopped the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. Despite four court orders condemning the practice as a violation of the First Amendment, the FDA continues to deny certain health information, thus suppressing consumers’ rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to put an end to such unnecessary and insane censorship by the FDA.

  Second, my amendment would have disarmed the FDA by preventing agents from carrying firearms when executing warrants, arrests, or seizures of harmful products. Frankly, I don’t want to see any more Amish farms raided with guns for the “crime” of selling raw milk from a cow. I think that’s ludicrous, and I think most Americans agree. And quite frankly, it gives me the creeps to see armed federal agents invade someone’s private property in such a jackbooted manner. Such things simply aren’t supposed to happen in America.

  Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. In 2011, Natural News complied a timeline of FDA raids on raw milk farmers, dietary supplement makers and natural medicine practitioners over the last quarter century. Starting in 1985, they cited 56 separate incidents, the premises of which would
outrage most Americans—with the FDA barging into private businesses and seizing everything from materials and computer files to checkbooks and cash. This is insane.

  I think we have too many armed federal agencies. Nearly forty different federal agencies can carry guns. We have too many agencies featuring armed agents because we have too many federal criminal laws. Criminal law is increasingly used as a tool by government to punish and control honest businessmen attempting to make a living. Historically, criminal law was intended to punish only the most horrible offenses, legitimate crimes that virtually everyone would agree were inherently evil or wrongful—murder, rape, theft, arson, and the like.

  But today the criminal law is used to punish behavior such as fishing without a permit, packaging a product incorrectly, or shipping something with an “improper” label. This is absurd. The plain language of our Constitution specifies a very limited number of federal crimes. Originally, there were only four—treason, counterfeiting, piracy or felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.

  But we have now moved so far away from the original intent of our Constitution that we don’t even know or have a complete list of all the federal criminal laws on the books. There are over 4,450 federal statutory crimes scattered throughout the U.S. Code. It is estimated that there are tens of thousands more crimes that exist among all our federal regulations. But no one—not even criminal law professors or criminal lawyers—actually knows the exact number with certainty.

  In addition to the unknown number of federal crimes, the vast majority of criminal statutes that have been passed by Congress in recent years lack adequate mens rea requirements—our traditional and basic legal notion of criminal intent. In other words, Congress passes laws that either completely lack or have an extremely weak “guilty mind” requirement, meaning that someone charged under the statute could be convicted of a federal offense when he or she just made an honest mistake, or perhaps did not possess the criminal intent traditionally necessary for a criminal conviction.