THE DEATH OF THE AMERICAN DREAM BY FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE

You can hear our interview with Frosty on Freedom Talk Netcast, http://www.freedomtalknetcast.com/ in the archives. 

HAS THE AMERICAN DREAM COME TO AN END?

By Frosty Wooldridge
November 25, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

"For generations, parents have told their children about "The American
Dream." Basically it has meant building a life based on the foundational
principles that created and have sustained America for more than 200 years."

Greater than any other country in the modern world, the United States
offered, from 1776 to 2010, unprecedented opportunities to the common
citizen to manifest the "American Dream." Every resident enjoys the choices
of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

How do you define the American Dream? Basically, it allows average
citizens to enjoy higher education, greater choices and fulfillment of their
personal goals. Those aspirations allow farm boys to play in the New York
Philharmonic, or a Texas kid to sing the National Anthem in Yankee Stadium,
or a poor black girl like Oprah Winfrey to become a movie star, fabulously
rich and the host of the Oprah Show. She that educates and enlightens
millions around the world. It allows inner-city ghetto kids like O.J.
Simpson to gain stardom, money and a mega-wealthy home-only to sit in prison
for his transgressions.

It allows men like Bernie Madoff to rise to astonishing wealth only to
fall into disgrace and prison. The American Dream allows a poor white kid
like Abe Lincoln to rise to the presidency as well as an illegitimate black
kid like Barack Obama to sit in the White House in 2010. The American Dream
allows anyone with fortitude, integrity, drive and creative talents to chase
their dreams.

For example: how could a poor boy step off the farm in the 1950s,
graduate from college, become a teacher, and move on to live a life of
adventure? How could he jump on a bicycle and ride it 100,000 miles across
six continents and seven times coast-to-coast across America? How could a
kid enjoy such an amazing life that Marco Polo or Captain Cook would envy?
How could he write 10 books with more on the way? How could he speak up
against his own government and fight for what's right and not get thrown
into political prison? I don't know, but I am that kid. I must pinch myself
because it all gets down to the luck of my birth and country of origin.

If you look around the planet, you will not see the "Indian Dream";
"China Dream"; "Mexican Dream"; "Bangladesh Dream" or "African Dream." In
those places-poverty, death, disease, famine, few choices and a pretty
unfortunate life experience await many human beings.

For that matter in my 40 years of world travel, only about 15
countries allow their citizens the ability to make enough money to travel
the planet. The rest of humanity scratches out a living.

But, I am willing to bet, that for the United States, the American
Dream will turn out to be a brief fantasy in the history of our country,
ending circa 2010 or so. Our own leaders bankrupted our government,
defrauded future generations with $13 trillion in debt, forced us into
useless and immoral wars like Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and
Afghanistan; they sold the American people downstream by shipping our entire
manufacturing foundation and mercantile goods to other countries.

We suffer a mind-numbing 41.8 million Americans subsisting on food
stamps. Another 15 million stand in unemployment lines and seven million
cannot procure a full time job. Our country and its citizens morph into a
welfare state. Personal accountability and personal responsibility-die in
the schools of America where Black, White and Hispanic kids flunk out of
high school at 7,000 per day-over 1.2 million annually. A record 72 percent
of black teens give birth to children without fathers-and live off the backs
of taxpaying Americans-without giving it a second thought as they birth two,
three and more babies.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -
Isaac Asimov

Is the American Dream dead? I submit that it staggers on life-support
and the final diagnosis may prove unfortunate.

Charleston Tea Party writer KC said, "We have created a new definition
of "The American Dream". It has nothing to do with values and principles,
but has everything to do with "stuff." Is the goal an accumulation of
possessions? If that's the case, then our nation of bureaucratic welfare
recipients should be the happiest, most fulfilled people the world has ever
produced. Instead Prozac, valium and therapists abound. Suicide is an
epidemic and we are engaged in major sociological soul searching to find
fulfillment in this wealthy but empty lifestyle."

As I learned in my travels-as human numbers climb into the millions
and billions in any civilization, human options diminish and degrade. As
human numbers grow-options and freedoms shrink. As human numbers accelerate,
everything degrades from standard of living to quality of life. And, once
enormous populations manifest-everyone lives in tense toleration,
intimidation and diminished opportunities. Can this country survive the next
added 100 million Americans manifesting via immigration within 25 years?

Bill Moyers asked the question to write Isaac Asimov, "What happens to
the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues
at its present rate?"

"It will be completely destroyed," said Asimov. "I will use what I
call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two
bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the
bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you
need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right
there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and
two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of
the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each
person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

"The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity
cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put
more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it
disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the
less one individual matters."

From my world traveling perspective, the American Dream will not
survive what's coming.

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top
national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at
www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your
time zone.

© 2010 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and
families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six
continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His
published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS" ; "STRIKE THREE!
TAKE YOUR BASE"; "IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES";
"MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND-A TEEN NOVEL"; "BICYCLING
AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION"; "AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER:
ANTARCTICA." His next book: "TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP." He
lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. 'IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION-DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.'

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

NEW WORLD ORDER DICTATES

November 26, 2010

Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico), By Allan Wall

America Bashed At U.N. Migration Gabfest—Obama Representative Schwartz Says "More"!

The beautiful Mexican resort city of Puerto Vallarta was recently the scene of the 4^th Annual "Global Forum on Migration and Development", attended by 200 representatives of governments and NGOs from 160 countries.

This expensive confab was sponsored by the United Nations, that meddling globalist organization which receives 22% of its funding from the United States, i.e., the U.S. taxpayer. China, by the way, kicks in a whopping 2.667% of the UN budget.

Just to hear the title—"Global Forum on Migration and Development"—pretty much tells you where this gaggle of international bureaucrats is coming from. I mean, really, what do you expect a United Nations forum to tell First World countries swamped with immigrants to do—control their own borders?

Our own Obama Administration sent a high-level representative, Eric P. Schwartz, "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration". (More on his contribution later).

Was the forum a useless gabfest? Would that it were! The people who attend these events are globalist bureaucrats whose policy prescriptions may well wind up being enacted in, among other countries, the U.S.A.

This was the fourth Global Forum on Migration and Development (hereafter referred to as the GFMD). The previous ones were held in Brussels (2007), Manila (2008) and Athens (2009).

And there’s one scheduled for next year, in Switzerland. (Say, how about if we send a delegation from VDARE.COM? As long as we don’t have to travel through a TSA-controlled airport!)

The GMFD’s official website contains a description of what it’s all about:

"The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) is a recent initiative of the United Nations Member States to address the migration and development interconnections in practical and action-oriented ways. It is an informal, non-binding, voluntary and government-led process that marks the culmination of more than a decade of international dialogue on the growing importance of the linkages between migration and development. It reflects the progressive acknowledgement of the limits of a strictly national approach to migration questions and implications at global level in an intergovernmental framework. In view of the societal implications of these issues, civil society representatives have also been involved from the outset in this process."

Notice the globalist doubletalk. On the one hand, we’re assured that the GFMD is "an informal, non-binding, voluntary and government-led process". On the other hand, it "reflects the progressive acknowledgement of the limits of a strictly national approach to migration questions and implications at global level in an intergovernmental framework".

According to the website, the Mexico GFMD was considered a raving success:

"Thanks to the collective efforts and active participation of varied stakeholders, the Mexico GFMD has advanced the international discourse on the complex issues of migration and development and the interplay of these two policy fields. Sensitive issues such as irregular migration, protection of migrant families and children, gender and climate change, were spotlighted in the interests of strengthening the human development potential of migration. "

"Gender and climate change"?

In case you were wondering, "irregular migration" is a euphemism for illegal migration.

But there’s more …

"More importantly, this year’s GFMD focused on building partnerships – between governments, public and private sectors, migrants, diaspora, civil society, international organizations, and other actors. Two new innovations were introduced—the Common Space aimed to foster understanding of common issues between governments and civil society, while the Platform for Partnerships aimed to promote the implementation of GFMD recommendations and outcomes by governments, in partnership with international organizations, international foundations, and the civil society.

"Both initiatives were widely welcomed by the participants."[Links added]

Yeah, I bet they were…

So what sorts of policy prescriptions did the folks at the GFMD have for the World? According to this summary

"The 4th Global Forum on Migration and Development kicked off in Puerto Vallarta by calling for the decriminalization of migration and criticizing xenophobia."

(By "xenophobia", I assume they mean the quaint idea that a nation or culture has a right to protect itself from being swamped by foreigners.)

"Peter Sutherland, UN representative for Migration, warned of rising xenophobia in some parts of the world, and stated that in these times of economic crisis and unemployment, the creative role of migrants is crucial to improve the planet."

By way of fuller disclosure, according to Wikipedia (November 26, 2010), Irish former Eurocrat Sutherland is also a Bilderberger, a leader of the Trilateral Commission, and non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Needless to say, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico gave a speech at the forum. How could he not? After all, the forum combined two of his very favorite activities: (1) hobnobbing with UN/globalist types; and (2) bashing U.S. immigration policy.

The speech was vintage Calderon. The Mexican president called migration "a positive force for the development of the peoples" and spoke of "the millions and millions of Mexicans" who have emigrated, "the millions and millions of descendents who in other countries [i.e., the U.S.A.] still bear Mexico in the blood and in the heart". (My translation)

Calderon defended the contribution of Latin Americans to the U.S. economy, going so far as to say that "I affirm that the economic growth of the biggest economy of the world in the Twentieth Century [the U.S.] is inexplicable without the careful and competitive workmanship of the Latin American migrants to the United States."

Without immigration, said Calderon shamelessly, many state governments in the U.S. would go broke!

Calderon boldly proclaimed that "…migration has been a natural phenomenon that cannot be erased by decree nor much less by fomenting hostility and adverse sentiment of citizens of one country to another".

Translation: The U.S. can’t stop Mexican immigration and Americans shouldn’t even complain about it. Of course, this doesn’t apply to Mexico.

Calderon spoke of the "necessity of arriving to a migratory accord between the countries of origin, transit and destination, that permits the regularization of the migrants [amnesty]…"

And he said that "…we should work with shared responsibility…a global phenomenon cannot be confronted with unilateral policies…."

Another dig at the U.S.

Calderon boasted to his fellow globalists of the 50 Mexican consulates in the U.S. and even had the gall to claim that these Mexican consulates have been opening up health care facilities for Mexicans in the U.S., because, said Calderon, "...in many places the migrants are not attended or are not granted or recognized any right to health".

Oh really—how about the fact that Mexican illegal aliens routinely use American emergency room facilities for free?

Calderon shed crocodile tears over the approximately 400 illegal aliens who die crossing the border annually, "They die in the desert, of thirst, drowned in the river, and also, killed by [U.S.] border authorities on the other side, as has occurred, disgracefully, in more than a dozen cases of Mexican migrants".("…muertas por las autoridades fronterizas de aquel lado, como ha ocurrido ya, por desgracia, en más de una decena de casos de migrantes mexicanos. ") [VDARE.com note: This apparently refers to illegals who attacked Border Patrol and Customs officers and were killed in self defense. The Border Patrol has lost ten agents in five years, and many have been wounded by "migrants."]

Guess what—if all those Mexicans had stayed in Mexico, they´d be Calderon’s responsibility, wouldn´t they?

Typical Mexican government arrogance and hypocrisy. What else is new?

But surely the U.S. representative, Eric P. Schwartz, "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration" defended the honor of United States, right?

Right?

On the eve of his departure to Puerto Vallarta, Schwartz gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. The speech was entitled "Respecting the Dignity and Human Rights of people on the move: International Migration Policy for the 21^st Century" . Here are some excerpts:

"International migration policy concerns the array of national practices that apply to the treatment of citizens and non-citizens who cross borders, and constitutes the effort, by the United States and others, to share best practices and develop common principles, approaches and initiatives toward these populations. And while domestic immigration policy remains the sovereign right of each individual nation, how each of us addresses migration at home will inform any effort to develop common international understandings.

"…My remarks today come against the backdrop of the fourth Global Forum on Migration and Development taking place this week in Puerto Vallarta. I will lead the U.S. delegation to the Forum, where our goal will be to articulate principles and policies that serve the broad development objectives of receiving, transit and sending countries, while respecting the dignity and well-being of people on the move—as well as the sovereign rights of governments to determine their domestic immigration policies.

Somehow, Schwartz’s references to "sovereign rights of nations/governments" don’t sound too convincing when you stack it up against all that other globalist mumbo-jumbo.

At the actual Forum, during a question-and-answer session, Alfonso Hinojosa, a Bolivian diplomat, bashed Arizona’s SB 1070 law. He was rewarded by applause from the audience.

So how did Eric P. Schwartz, the U.S. "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration", defend the United States from such an unwarranted attack?

Not to worry. Schwartz’s defense was that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had both opposed SB 1070, because the contribution of migrants "is crucial" for the U.S., and that more must be done (to promote that agenda) at the state and federal level.

"Schwartz, secretario de Estado adjunto de Población, Refugiados y Migración de Estados Unidos, respondió que el presidente Barack Obama y la secretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton, se han manifestado en contra de la ley Arizona, con la certeza de que la contribución de los migrantes "es crucial" para ese país. Reconoció que "es necesario hacer más" a escalas estatal y federal." [Impulsan migrantes el progreso de países receptores, admiten en foro mundial, By Fabiola Martínez, La Jornada, November 11, 2010]

Well, there you go. With representatives like "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration" Eric P. Schwartz defending America in international forums, do we need enemies?

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

WHICH SENATORS GOT PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 - THE 'FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT'?

From Liberty News Online:

WHICH SENATORS GOT PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 - THE 'FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT'?11-18-2010 11:16 pm - John W. Wallace
The following is a list of U.S Senators and the Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that these Senators received from Special Interest Groups to either support or oppose S.510 - The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received:

Name of Senator - Party & State - Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510

Daniel Akaka - D HI - Bribe For: $27,690 - Against: $700

Lamar Alexander - R TN - Bribe For: $190,421 - Against: $4,850

John Barrasso - R WY - Bribe For: $31,350 - Against: $27,500

Max Baucus - D MT - Bribe for: $123,803 - Against: $55,980

Evan Bayh - D IN - Bribe For: $45,200 - Against: 8,250

Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 - Against: $2,000

Michael Bennet - D CO - Bribe For: $38,509 - Against: $22,050

Robert Bennett - R UT - Bribe For: $105,530 - Against: $10,000

Jeff Bingaman - D NM - Bribe For: $31,498 - Against: $8,450

Christopher Bond - R MO - Bribe For: $49,550 - Against: $5,200

Barbara Boxer - D CA - Bribe For: $120,000 - Against: $13,650

Sherrod Brown - D OH - Bribe For: $57,800 - Against: $6,600

Samuel Brownback - R KS - Bribe For: $20,950 - Against: $13,500

Jim Bunning - R KY - Brobe For: $20,700 - Against: $2,000

Richard Burr - R NC - Bribe For: $328,086 - Against: $32,292

Roland Burris - D IL - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

Maria Cantwell - D WA - Bribe For: $93,541 - Against: $2,750

Benjamin Cardin - D MD - Bribe For: $72,200 - Against: $0

Thomas Carper - D DE - Bribe For: $83,150 - Against: $0

Robert Casey - D PA - Bribe For: $80,576 - Against: $4,600

Saxby Chambliss - R GA - Bribe For: $557,694 - Against: $108,041

Thomas Coburn R OK - Bribe For: $64,400 - Against: $14,200

Thad Cochran - R MS - Bribe For: $50,144 - Against: $22,000

Susan Collins - R ME - Bribe For: $157,438 - Against: $7,800

Kent Conrad - D ND - Bribe For: $41,650 - Against: $29,612

Bob Corker - R TN - Bribe For: $298,639 - Against: $8,850

John Cornyn - R TX - Bribe For: $286,648 - Against: $254,730

Michael Crapo - R ID - Bribe For: $64,199 - Against: $14,350

Jim DeMint - R SC - Bribe For: $149,935 - Against: $5,000

Christopher Dodd - D CT - Bribe For: $36,400 - Against: $4,500

Byron Dorgan - D ND - Bribe For: $28,200 - Against: $6,000

Richard Durbin - D IL - Bribe For: $151,050 - Against: $19,000

John Ensign - R NV - Bribe For: $76,297 - Against: $10,500

Michael Enzi - R WY - Bribe For: $87,394 - Against: $21,450

Russell Feingold - D WI - Bribe For: $53,854 - Against: $2,200

Dianne Feinstein - D CA - Bribe For: $168,189 - Against: 25,314

Kirsten Gillibrand - D NY - Bribe For: $98,210 - Against: $10,650

Lindsey Graham - R SC - Bribe For: $101,272 - Against: $5,700

Charles Grassley - R IA - Bribe For: $112,150 - Against: $25,500

Judd Gregg - R NH - Bribe For: $26,000 - Against: $0

Kay Hagan - D NC - Bribe For: $36,250 - Against: $3,500

Thomas Harkin - D IA - Bribe For: $138,135 - Against: $40,600

Orrin Hatch - R UT - Bribe For: $102,215 - Against: $11,600

Kay Hutchison - R TX - Bribe For: $127,811 - Against: $103,386

James Inhofe - R OK - Bribe For: $66,744 - Against: $36,430

Daniel Inouye - D HI - Bribe For: $26,350 - Against: $11,200

John Isakson - R GA - Bribe For: $280,995 - Against: $10,100

Mike Johanns - R NE - Bribe For: $159,259 - Against: $59,785

Tim Johnson - D SD - Bribe For: $26,850 - Against: $15,000

Edward Kaufman - D DE - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

John Kerry - D MA - Bribe For: $14,406 - Against: $250

Amy Klobuchar - D MN - Bribe For: $149,778 - Against: $16,250

Herbert Kohl - D WI - Bribe For: $300 - Against: $0

Jon Kyl - R AZ - Bribe For: $363,660 - Against: $58,906

Mary Landrieu - D LA - Bribe For: $73,622 - Against: $2,250

Frank Lautenberg - D NJ - Bribe For: $37,883 - Agqinst: $3,550

Patrick Leahy - D VT - Bribe For: $13,800 - Against: $2,750

Carl Levin - D MI - Bribe For: $49,900 - Against: $2,000

Joseph Lieberman - I CT - Bribe For: $121,075 - Against: $0

Blanche Lincoln - D AR - Bribe For: $347,526 - Against: $125,297

Richard Lugar - R IN - Bribe For: $153,579 - Against: $21,000

John McCain - R AZ - Bribe For: $118,070 - Against: $21,525

Claire McCaskill - D MO - Bribe For: $48,950 - Against: $7,650

Mitch McConnell - R KY - Bribe For: $439,593 - Against: $42,244

Robert Menéndez - D NJ - Bribe For: $183,850 - Against: $250

Jeff Merkley - D OR - Bribe For: $27,350 - Against; $3,300

Barbara Mikulski - D MD - Bribe For: $52,165 - Against: $1,000

Lisa Murkowski - R AK - Bribe For: $164,713 - Against: $5,800

Patty Murray - D WA - Bribe For: $136,500 - Against: $3,150

Ben Nelson - D NE - Bribe For: $254,906 - Against: $44,950

Bill Nelson - D FL - Bribe For: $205,471 - Against: $35,748

Mark Pryor - D AR - Bribe For: $115,550 - Against: $16,565

John Reed - D RI - Bribe For: $29,350 - Against: $0

Harry Reid - D NV - Bribe For: $133,985 - Against: $10,000

James Risch - R ID - Bribe For: $56,750 - Against; $36,050

Pat Roberts - R KS - Bribe For: $167,294 - Against: $65,186

John Rockefeller - D WV - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $1,000

Bernard Sanders - I VT - Bribe For: $7,800 - Against: $4,200

Charles Schumer - D NY - Bribe For: $175,185 - Against: $14,200

Jefferson Sessions - R AL - Bribe For: $65,303 - Against: $16,800

Jeanne Shaheen - D NH - Bribe For: $17,090 - Against: $7,300

Richard Shelby - R AL - Bribe For: $73,616 - Against: $10,000

Olympia Snowe - R ME - Bribe For: $78,136 - Against: $2,000

Arlen Specter - D PA - Bribe For: $209,124 - Against: $9,400

Debbie Ann Stabenow - D MI - Bribe For: $84,941 - Against: $14,482

Jon Tester - D MT - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $61,550

John Thune - R SD - Bribe For: $218,900 - Against: $55,625

Mark Udall - D CO - Bribe For: $34,435 - Against: $45,050

Tom Udall - D NM - Bribe For: $27,102 - Against: $51,900

David Vitter - R LA - Bribe For: $188,225 - Against: $8,500

George Voinovich - R OH - Bribe For: $103,850 - Against: $185

Mark Warner - D VA - Bribe For: $116,450 - Against: $8,600

Jim Webb - D VA - Bribe For: $25,300 - Against: $7,700

Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI - Bribe For: $27,025 - Against: $1,500

Roger Wicker - R MS - Bribe For: $147,650 - Against: $16,250

Ron Wyden - D OR - Bribe For: $58,700 - Against: $4,900

Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:

Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
American Veterinarian Medical Association $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0

Here's a list of Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that sopposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:

Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0

I wonder how the Senators will Vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate?