By Fox News contributor Matt Miller The meat department at the local grocery store is a familiar sight.

A small window displays the prices for all the meats and the dates for the meat, which you can pick up at the counter.

But now that the meat department is in the meat-packing plant, that window is open to a whole new world of meat options.

Here are the top five meat retailers in the U.S.

A lot of the meat you see at the butcher shop or butcher’s counter comes from slaughterhouses.

But a lot of it comes from a plant in New Hampshire, where the company, CSA Meat Inc., manufactures and markets a plant that processes and stores the carcasses of animals.

The slaughterhouse that processes the carcass is located in this facility, in Bridgewater, New Hampshire.

The plant is one of the largest in the United States.

This plant processes more than 100,000 carcasses a day and, as a result, the company has a lot more meat than its competitors.

It also has an extensive inventory of frozen meat, meats, and other meat products, as well as a large stockpile of meat.

It is a very, very busy plant, but it has been profitable.

For the past two years, the CSA has been in a legal dispute with a New Hampshire farmer over the rights to the carcas it processes.

This is because the farmers claim that they should have the right to sell the carcases they process.

The company says the farmers are not entitled to this right, and it has filed suit to stop them from selling the meat it processes, and to force the farmers to sell it to the company.

In court filings, the farmers have argued that the carcassing rights should be guaranteed for the farmers because they are the ones who make up the meat business and not CSA.

It’s not clear what the outcome of this legal battle is going to be, but the farmers say that they are pursuing this case in New York, in hopes of gaining the right for the farmer to sell his carcasses.

The legal battle over CSA meat started in September when the farmer, Michael J. Smith, filed a lawsuit against CSA in New Jersey.

In the suit, Smith alleged that the company violated his right to freedom of religion by manufacturing and marketing a meat product that is sold to the public.

Smith’s complaint was eventually settled out of court.

But CSA says that Smith’s claim is wrong and that it should be protected by the First Amendment.

CSA’s lawyers, in their court filings in the New Jersey case, argue that Smith has the right not only to sue, but to have the case thrown out.CSA’s argument is that the right of free speech does not extend to the sale of meat, and that Smith should not be allowed to sell this product because he has the First and Fourteenth Amendments to protect his First Amendment rights.

That argument was put forward by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which is representing the farmers.

The arguments in the case are a bit complicated.

In New Jersey there is a law that states that the government may not make or sell any “lawful restraint of commerce” to prevent a person from selling a product, or from engaging in conduct that might lead to the restraint of such sale.

And the U:S.

Supreme Court has said that “lawfulness” does not have to be the same thing as “intended consequence.”

But that does not mean that the farmers in New England cannot sell their meat.

So it’s a question of interpretation of the law.

For example, if a government wanted to make a law restricting the sale to a certain class of people, that would be prohibited by the law of New Hampshire and not by the state’s law of commerce, so the farmers cannot sell to the government.

The farmers argue that there are a lot other laws that could be applied to CSA, such as laws that require it to buy all of its meat from a certain type of supplier, which would be illegal under New Hampshire law.

The lawyers also argue that New Hampshire does not protect CSA from lawsuits in New Mexico and New York.

And that CSA can still sue the farmers if it wishes.

In the New Hampshire case, CAA argued that Smith violated his rights to free speech by selling his meat product and that his lawsuit should be thrown out because of that violation.

The lawyers argued that if the state had an interest in the protection of Smith’s rights to freedom from religion and of the exercise of his religion, then Smith would have the First, Fourteenth, and Four Amendment rights to sue in New Hampshires court, but not in New States court.

The U:s Supreme Court agreed.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said that Smith did have the rights of free expression and freedom of association.

So Smith could sue, the justices said, if he felt that the New York and New Jersey laws did not apply