NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Jul 24

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Written by: Marti Oakley – Proud Political Junkie’s Gazette

farmer3_deesA decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early.  As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed …yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works.

I guess this statement in her opinion would answer the question posed to Tom Vilsack and other officials from the USDA, demanding to know under what authority or law NAIS is being implemented and is scheduled to become mandatory.  Turns out, according to Judge Collyer…there is none.  It would also answer the question as to why Mr. Vilsack nor the USDA will respond to the question or even acknowledge it has ever been asked.

It is apparent from this ruling there is no legal, lawful, legislative regulation or statute which allows, establishes or mandates NAIS.   The USDA, using its so-called “rule-making” authority, which is nothing less than illegal law enacted by a non-elected bureaucracy, has simply been the tool to by-pass constitutional rights and liberties in an effort to expand the power and control of not only the agency itself, but also the federal government which has long since exceeded its Constitutional authority and power on many levels.

Since the court has ruled in this way, does this not make the bribes paid to state officials to “voluntarily” implement NAIS , euphemistically called [cooperative agreements]..an act of collusion?  Wouldn’t this also make refusal to comply with state enacted mandates, for which the Judge herself has admitted, there is no lawful basis, a legal protection for farmers and ranchers?  And would this not also include the prohibition on the SWAT team-like assaults being perpetrated in states like Wisconsin which accepted one of the USDA’s multi-million dollar bribes to do a test run on NAIS/Premises ID?

The judge also seemed not to be concerned about the impending loss of private property rights which is an intended result of NAIS/Premises ID; apparently having no judicial problem with livestock owners being referred to as [stakeholders, legally implying they have an interest in but are not the owners of their own property] and land owners relegated to the category of [tenants or managers] again removing them from the rightful legal ownership of the land.

Judge Collyer’s expert legal opinion went on to say that NAIS is “an identification and tracking program developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and adopted by state agriculture departments voluntarily”.  This is a patently false statement by the court.  USDA DID NOT develop the NAIS or Premises ID program.  USDA is simply trying to codify into law Codex Alimentarius and all of its international regulations and standards of which NAIS/Premises Id is a key feature.

Again, paying bribes to state officials to implement what the Judge herself identifies as a non-existence law or regulation should have warranted the halting of any programs regardless of what non-elected agency had launched them into the public domain on behalf of Bio-tech and Codex Alimentarius.

“Collyer continued with….”They, however, completely fail to address Michigan state law, which authorizes the director of MDA to adopt programs such as NAIS compliance for cattle, and plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is misplaced.”  The Judge does not admit or allude to the fact that Michigan would not have enacted this law without federal interference or encouragement.

The Judge seemed not to consider that Michigan officials had illegally entered into an agreement with USDA, which was the catalyst for the Michigan law, and had accepted monetary assistance, cooperative funding or what is in my opinion, legalized bribery to do so.

The Judge seemed not to be aware of a precedence, (a judicial concept continually invoked by courts when their intended rulings are in conflict with actual law) or, as in this instance totally ignored by the court as it would have rendered the ruling void,  which states:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

It seems apparent that precedence is only advantageous when it does not conflict with intended encroachment by the government or its agencies.

Although the above opinion is by far not the only opinion of the Courts regarding the illegality of states agreeing to the implementation of what are obviously assaults on constitutional rights and protections, it is the most powerful.

Kudos to Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund for having the courage to mount this lawsuit.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Tags: , , , , , ,

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Jul 24

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Written by: Marti Oakley – Proud Political Junkie’s Gazette

farmer3_deesA decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early. As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed…yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works.

I guess this statement in her opinion would answer the question posed to Tom Vilsack and other officials from the USDA, demanding to know under what authority or law NAIS is being implemented and is scheduled to become mandatory. Turns out, according to Judge Collyer…there is none. It would also answer the question as to why Mr. Vilsack nor the USDA will respond to the question or even acknowledge it has ever been asked.

It is apparent from this ruling there is no legal, lawful, legislative regulation or statute which allows, establishes or mandates NAIS. The USDA, using its so-called “rule-making” authority, which is nothing less than illegal law enacted by a non-elected bureaucracy, has simply been the tool to by-pass constitutional rights and liberties in an effort to expand the power and control of not only the agency itself, but also the federal government which has long since exceeded its Constitutional authority and power on many levels.

Since the court has ruled in this way, does this not make the bribes paid to state officials to “voluntarily” implement NAIS , euphemistically called [cooperative agreements]..an act of collusion? Wouldn’t this also make refusal to comply with state enacted mandates, for which the Judge herself has admitted, there is no lawful basis, a legal protection for farmers and ranchers? And would this not also include the prohibition on the SWAT team-like assaults being perpetrated in states like Wisconsin which accepted one of the USDA’s multi-million dollar bribes to do a test run on NAIS/Premises ID?

The judge also seemed not to be concerned about the impending loss of private property rights which is an intended result of NAIS/Premises ID; apparently having no judicial problem with livestock owners being referred to as [stakeholders, legally implying they have an interest in but are not the owners of their own property] and land owners relegated to the category of [tenants or managers] again removing them from the rightful legal ownership of the land.

Judge Collyer’s expert legal opinion went on to say that NAIS is “an identification and tracking program developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and adopted by state agriculture departments voluntarily”. This is a patently false statement by the court. USDA DID NOT develop the NAIS or Premises ID program. USDA is simply trying to codify into law Codex Alimentarius and all of its international regulations and standards of which NAIS/Premises Id is a key feature.

Again, paying bribes to state officials to implement what the Judge herself identifies as a non-existence law or regulation should have warranted the halting of any programs regardless of what non-elected agency had launched them into the public domain on behalf of Bio-tech and Codex Alimentarius.

“Collyer continued with….”They, however, completely fail to address Michigan state law, which authorizes the director of MDA to adopt programs such as NAIS compliance for cattle, and plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is misplaced.” The Judge does not admit or allude to the fact that Michigan would not have enacted this law without federal interference or encouragement.

The Judge seemed not to consider that Michigan officials had illegally entered into an agreement with USDA, which was the catalyst for the Michigan law, and had accepted monetary assistance, cooperative funding or what is in my opinion, legalized bribery to do so.

The Judge seemed not to be aware of a precedence, (a judicial concept continually invoked by courts when their intended rulings are in conflict with actual law) or, as in this instance totally ignored by the court as it would have rendered the ruling void, which states:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

It seems apparent that precedence is only advantageous when it does not conflict with intended encroachment by the government or its agencies.

Although the above opinion is by far not the only opinion of the Courts regarding the illegality of states agreeing to the implementation of what are obviously assaults on constitutional rights and protections, it is the most powerful.

Kudos to Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund for having the courage to mount this lawsuit.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maria Minno: This bill is a threat to small farms

Jul 23

Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, Food, NAIS | No Comments

HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, includes a number of alarming provisions:

Going Out of BusinessFirst, HR2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” This undermines food security, because under this provision, our safest sources of food, farmers markets and local food sources, could be shut down arbitrarily, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. This is too much power for a governmental agency!

Second, this act authorizes warrantless searches. The FDA, which has proven itself to be highly biased against local farmers and any competition to industrial food producers, to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers. This is too much power for an irresponsible government agency such as the FDA.

Third, what this act refers to as “traceability” is actually most likely to be a huge threat to small sustainable farms. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be charged with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” Whether or not this is NAIS or something even more extensive, the bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.

Fourth, this act will impose severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to a total of $100,000 for individuals.

Fifth, HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.

Sixth, HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. Heaven help us if this happens!

Maria Minno

Gainesville

Tags: , , , , , ,

NAIS Is A Threat To Small Sustainable Farms and Ranches

Jul 23

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

From the Underground Food Movement-
Written by: Maria Minno



Sustainable farms, healthy foods, local foods

NAIS Is A Threat To Small Sustainable Farms and Ranches

NAIS is the National Animal Identification, a government system to track animals by injecting them with a computer chip that is read and reported on by the farmer whenever an animal changes places. It will require small farmers to spend a great deal of money on equipment and inserting the chips and reporting any changes, with terrible fines for computer errors, acts of nature, or non-compliance. Large feedlots are virtually exempted from the process, as they need only one chip number for hundreds of animals.

NAIS is a very important issue to me, as well as to small farmers, who produce our healthiest foods in a sustainable manner. It will not help with food safety, however.

The USDA will be in charge of NAIS, and the government is pushing it, because they are being heavily lobbied by the companies who will make millions off of the tags, reading equipment, and data management. It makes it look like they are doing something to promote food safety, yet NAIS is the antithesis of food safety.

The National Animal Identification System is truly frightening to me. Clearly, the modern American food system is not keeping us safe. Yet NAIS is more dangerous than the status quo. It is Orwellian, it threatens small farms, it runs against my beliefs, and is a threat to my basic needs.

It’s not that we do not need vast improvements in food safety to clear up our health crisis and food contamination dangers. We do! But corporate agribusiness pressure is preventing Congress and the USDA from enacting and enforcing true animal health and food safety measures. NAIS is not an animal health or food safety measure.

The USDA has been hearing overwhelming opposition to this measure, from both consumers and farmers. I will add my voice to the choir. I am a nutritional therapy practitioner, and I represent myself, my family, and my clients who rely upon high quality foods from small farms to regain and maintain their health. We all say that NAIS is not the animal health or food safety solution this country needs.

I am suffering from mercury poisoning caused by having a lot of silver fillings, which were removed with no consideration for the toxicity of mercury, and by consuming a lot of catfish that were contaminated with mercury and DDT. In order to survive and get well, I need to eat a lot of the highest quality milk, meat, eggs, and other animal foods. I am very careful about what I purchase, because I feel the quality of my food immediately in my day-to-day well-being. Most of the foods I buy are from small local farmers.

Because of my personal experience, I have changed the way I feed my family. My family members and my grandchildren all eat high quality animal foods from local farms, and I can really see the difference in their health and well being, especially compared to other families we know. My husband recovered from osteopoenia within a year of changing our diet to locally purchased meat and milk, and my son also became much healthier. Local animal foods have saved my life during my difficult struggles with chronic mercury toxicity.

I serve a number of clients who also have serious chronic health problems. Like me, they have found that proper nutrition is much more effective than drugs and medical procedures in improving their health and well-being. These people also rely upon animal foods from small local farms to keep them alive and healthy. If NAIS is implemented, I believe we will have NO MORE local small farms to purchase high quality products from. This is a huge quality of life issue for many people, and may even be a life-and-death issue for me, personally.

Corporate industrial farms may want to use NAIS to improve their overseas sales, and I have no objection to them tagging their own animals. Let them. However, because the tags are known to cause cancer, I wouldn’t want to eat the meat they produce, and I don’t think people from other countries will, either, once they know the tags cause cancer. And NAIS is clearly not the answer to animal health or food safety for food we want to consume in our own country.

I have a friend who did a lot of health care work at the VA hospital in Gainesville. She said that the identification tags the veterans had embedded in their necks, which are very similar to the NAIS tags, caused terrible cancers. Research shows that these tags used on pets are causing cancer, also. I do not want to eat food that has been injected with cancer causing tags. Do you?

The REAL sources of food safety problems are huge confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that concentrate thousands of animals in one location, as well as unsafe practices at the slaughterhouse and in food processing. NAIS traceability ends at the slaughterhouse, so what’s the point?

NAIS requires small farmers and ranchers to track each animal individually, while allowing CAFOs to track all animals under one blanket Group Identification Number. So it will be infinitely easier for the huge and dangerous CAFO’s to comply with NAIS, and impossible for the small farmers and ranchers. Thus, the USDA is promoting factory farms whose practices encourage disease, while putting small farms out of business and destroying the local food movement with their tag requirements and fees. Whose USDA is this, anyway?

What we actually need is small farms scattered all over, especially around urban areas, where the demand is the greatest and the distance the smallest, for energy efficiency and food security. The huge centralized CAFOs clearly are not good for people, for the environment, for animals, or for food safety. They are not even good for the economy, because, like WalMart, they replace the local small businesses (farms) with low-income low-quality slave labor types of jobs.

We need diversified farms, which are more sustainable, healthy, efficient, productive, and safe. If a local farm grows both animals and plants, their ecology supports one another (fertilizer for the plants, food and bugs for the animals). Small, sustainable farms are a pleasure to live near; CAFO’s are a blight.

We need to improve the viability of our own farming sector by making imports more costly, by increasing inspections of imported animals and agricultural products, and barring the entry of animals from countries with known disease problems.

We need to support our small farms, not try to put them out of business with laws and regulations such as NAIS. Read Joel Salatin’s book, “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal” if you want to hear a funny but true story of the difficulties of producing really high quality food in this country.

We particularly need to improve enforcement of existing laws and inspections of large slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, including unannounced spot inspections. I heard an interesting story about the USDA slaughterhouse near Gainesville. Apparently they were stealing and switching meat, so that high quality grassfed meat that my friend was selling would be replaced at the slaughterhouse by conventional, low quality meat. My friend tried to talk with the slaughterhouse management, but the unethical practice continued. When my friend asked the USDA to intervene, they said that wasn’t their job!

It appears that the USDA sees its job as protecting the huge industrial farms from competition from small farms that produce exceptionally high quality food that is now in high demand.

Where NAIS has been tried already, it has been found to be a resounding failure for all of its stated goals. NAIS is government control and ineptitude magnified a million-fold. Furthermore, it is reminiscent of the practices of Nazi Germany. NAIS may make a few large corporations wealthy (like the tag and reader manufacturers and database managers), but for all the rest of us, it has no redeeming value, and an unacceptable cost.

Please stop this travesty now.

To sign a petition against HR 2749
http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php

To sign a petition against NAIS
http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm

To submit comments regarding NAIS to the USDA
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/feedback

For more information on NAIS and HR 2749
http://www.nonais.org/
http://www.ftcldf.org/press/press-08july2009.htm
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-02june2009-5.htm

Gainesville Sun editorial on HR 2749
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090714/NEWS/907149927/1008/WEATHER?Title=Maria-Minno-This-bill-is-a-threat-to-small-farms

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS – Interview with Linda Faillace

Jul 22

Posted by admin in NAIS | 2 Comments

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Written by: Bill Suydam, Editor, Health Spectator

An interview with Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep

The National Animal Identification System is another of those government ideas that sounds so right on the surface but goes so wrong in the implementation details. Basically, it is a nationwide registration system for animals and the sites where they are kept. It has been causing a major uproar within the farming community, as it is a burden to small farmers, among others.

It will affect you too if you keep any sort of farm animals such as chickens, sheep, goats, horses, etc.—but if you do, you undoubtedly already know this.

We’ve been preparing a piece on this subject, but in the process we came across this video that gives you an excellent summary of what’s involved. So we thought we’d provide a video introduction, then look to converting our investigative reporting to a background article or editorial.

Most of our readers have probably never heard of NAIS. If you fall into that category, the video below will be a real eye-opener. The presenter is Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep:The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the USDA as a small farmer.

Tags: , , , , , ,

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Jul 22

Posted by admin in Food, NAIS | No Comments

An interview with Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep

UDSA NAZIThe National Animal Identification System is another of those government ideas that sounds so right on the surface but goes so wrong in the implementation details. Basically, it is a nationwide registration system for animals and the sites where they are kept. It has been causing a major uproar within the farming community, as it is a burden to small farmers, among others.

It will affect you too if you keep any sort of farm animals such as chickens, sheep, goats, horses, etc.–but if you do, you undoubtedly already know this.

We’ve been preparing a piece on this subject, but in the process we came across this video that gives you an excellent summary of what’s involved. So we thought we’d provide a video introduction, then look to converting our investigative reporting to a background article or editorial.

Most of our readers have probably never heard of NAIS. If you fall into that category, the video below will be a real eye-opener. The presenter is Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep:The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the USDA as a small farmer.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Obama even a legal citizen of the US?

Jul 15

Posted by admin in Rant | No Comments

I find this very disturbing that Obama won’t produce his long form birth certificate. Was he born here or not? If he was, he can produce a birth certificate. I was born here – I can!

This article was in World Net Daily:

BORN IN THE USA?

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama’s birthplace

Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Dr. Orly Taitz

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

“As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief,” he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

“[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections,” he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be “war criminals and subject to prosecution.”

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him “something is amiss.”

“That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody,” he said. “Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

“You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth,” he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a “jackass” and Taitz a “conwoman,” as he labeled both of them the “worst persons in the world.” He flayed the soldier as “an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice.”

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as “de facto president of the United States.”

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: “I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

According to the claim, “Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general.”

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider “a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question.”

“Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961,” explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

“We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people,” she said. “Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?”

Taitz said the issue “must be resolved immediately,” and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

“We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president,” she said. “We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided.”

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

“If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it,” Taitz said. “If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place.”

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

“Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'”

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

The mystery letter


Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi’olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)

Obama has maintained he was born in Hawaii, and at least one hospital, Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the president declaring his birth there.

As WND reported, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm that the letter which was used by the hospital to solicit donations is, in fact, a real correspondence.

When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code and had no presidential or White House seal, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.

WND also reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama’s birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama’s birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.

And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president’s supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.


Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.

The question over Obama’s eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.


“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard “long-form” birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn’t qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
  • Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Chelsea Schilling, Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.

Bookmark and Share

Related offers:

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, “Where’s the birth certificate?”

Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it’s in time for Independence Day tea party rallies.

Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.

Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.

Previous stories:

Now White House joins ‘birth hospital’ cover-up

Soldier won’t serve without proof Obama eligible

Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya

Just who delivered baby Barack Obama?

Obama’s ‘birth hospital’ in astonishing cover-up

New reports cite Obama’s African ‘home’

Obama’s birth letter: Is this thing for real?

U.S. hospitals ‘wouldn’t have to disclose Hitler’

News sites swap Obama’s birthplace like magic

Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital

Hospital won’t back Obama birth claim

THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue


Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

Tags: ,

HR 2749: Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply

Jul 15

Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS | No Comments

monsanto-no-foodA new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress-HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.  The bill needs to be stopped.


HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency.  The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.

Take Action HERE.

HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply.  The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.

To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm


(Read the section on tracing.  That is NAIS, isn’t it? –  highly disguised yet triggered by the word “trace.”  )

Alarming Provisions:

Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:


* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn’t this every home in the US, every garden?] Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. [What is the definition?] And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes.  There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren’t there?  Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX.  WTO “good farming practices” will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.  They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do – against their own best wisdom – and paying out to industry against their will.

There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one’s own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all.  Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished.  So, it’s obvious where control will take us.  And weren’t these the “rumors on the internet” that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”  [This – “that has been used to transport or hold such food” – would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who “hold food” then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]

* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food.  Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?]  would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.”  The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods.  With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply – is this not fascism? – so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]

* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”?  Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of “the Administrator”?  Who is that person set to be?  Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said?  That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?]

If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.

Action to Take:

Contact your Representative now!  Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues.  Tell them you are opposed to the bill.  Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:


1.  The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie.

2.  Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety.

3.  The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.

HR 2749 needs to be defeated!! Please take action NOW.

Take Action HERE.

Or, contact your Representative by using the finder tool at www.Congress.org or send a message through the petition system (the petition will be on our website this evening) at http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm.  Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

To check the status of HR 2749, go to www.Thomas.gov and type “HR 2749″ in the bill search field.

Tags: , , , , ,

NAIS Listening Sessions: Can a Monsanto Administration Really Hear?

Jul 13

Posted by admin in NAIS | 2 Comments

Image at www.batag.com
By Rady Ananda

Scrap NAIS; decentralize the food industry

The hottest topic in agriculture is NAIS – the proposed National Animal Identification System. Using embedded microchips and mountains of paperwork, the federal government plans to create a database that tracks every animal in the nation. Independent producers and privacy advocates adamantly oppose the plan.

From May 14th thru June 30th, the USDA held “listening sessions” in fourteen cities across the nation. USDA asserted it wants “to engage stakeholders and producers to hear not only their concerns about [NAIS], but also potential or feasible solutions to those concerns.”

USDA hoped the listening sessions would provide a forum where stakeholders could help devise a NAIS that producers could live with. Instead, ranchers and farmers want the entire NAIS plan scrapped. Over 1600 people attended these sessions, with 500 testifying. Eighty-five percent of those who spoke condemned NAIS.

Listening Session Quotes

Darol Dickinson, longhorn cattleman from Ohio, believes the USDA plan is being forced on producers, despite objection.

“They’ve conveyed to us that we have no right to oppose them. They’ve told people, ‘This is going to happen.’ That doesn’t sit well with independent thinking people, especially ranchers and farmers.”

Dickinson spoke at the Harrisburg, PA listening session and conveyed on Carl Lanore’s radio show:

“I told them that their ‘option’ reminded me of being an old herd sire – being pushed down an alley with an electric prod, and somebody mentions to the herd sire, ‘How do you want to be castrated – with a dull knife, with a burdizzo or an elastic band?’ And the answer, of course, is none of the above.”

One group opposing NAIS, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, urged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to re-focus the nation’s animal disease and food safety efforts on several alternatives including:

  • Decentralize the livestock industry and encourage local, diversified farms, which would increase animal health, food security, and food safety;
  • Increase inspections of imported animals and agricultural products and bar the entry of animals from countries with known disease problems; and
  • Improve enforcement of existing laws and inspections of large slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, including unannounced spot inspections at those large facilities.

Image at Salon.com
Mike Callicrate, an independent cattle producer, is not at all happy with NAIS. He firmly believes that the best way to protect the food supply is to enforce existing laws and go back to unannounced inspections of factory farms, slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants.

“Today, USDA, in protecting the biggest and dirtiest meat plants, continues to block trace-back of pathogens to the source plant, a very easy and inexpensive measure that could improve food safety tomorrow.”

He blames the 2002 E. coli contamination of 20 million pounds of ConAgra beef on lack of inspections.

“USDA has done nothing to address the problems in the big packing plants where E. coli is systematically put into our meat daily while trusting these big profit-driven companies to self inspect under the HACCP hoax.”

HACCP is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points plan whereby meatpackers and processing plants inspect themselves. They determine where the most likely places of contamination would occur and design mitigation techniques. The plan is then submitted to the USDA for approval, but enforcing it is left to the companies themselves.

At the Loveland, Colorado listening session, Kimmi Lewis of the Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association said, “This country is free because we are allowed to own private property.” If it’s tracked by government, it’s not private.

At the Harrisburg, PA listening session, horse breeder Barbara Steever called the USDA “disingenuous” for saying that NAIS will be used to control the spread of disease. To make her point, Steever then asked some hard-hitting questions:

  • “Why, then, are you lowering import restrictions to allow cattle in from Mexico that has bovine TB?
  • Why are you trying to bring in cattle from Argentina that is known to have a reservoir of FMD (foot-and-mouth disease)?
  • [Why are you allowing] cattle over 30 months of age from Canada, that have a higher risk of BSE, and disallowing private businesses from testing for BSE in response to their clients’ needs?
  • Why are you moving a high security disease containment facility into the middle of cattle country?”

madcow (300 x 374)One of the strongest speakers, Rhonda Perry, operates a livestock and grain operation. She spoke on behalf of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, representing 5,600 families. Reiterating above concerns, Perry adds:

“We see industrial livestock operations all over this country that have created incredible environmental, health and food safety concerns.”

Perry points out that none of today’s food safety issues are caused by independent family farmers. She challenges the USDA to increase competition as a strategy to increase food safety. Bust the monopolies and decentralize food production, “instead of looking at this unproven, ineffective, anti-farmer, corporate-driven program of NAIS.”

Others pointed out that NAIS violates our Constitutional rights, including religion. Amish and other religious communities reject implants and biotechnology.

Several dozen videos from the NAIS listening sessions have been posted at YouTube.

Interestingly, the USDA held no listening sessions in Wisconsin, where NAIS has been made mandatory. Farmers there are furious with the bureaucracy and have been warning the rest of the nation. In NAIS Smackdown: The gloves come off, R-Calf lists a better set of food safety proposals instead of NAIS.

Biggest Danger to Food Safety is a Centralized Food System

Safe food spokesperson, Michael Pollan, has long warned us that a centralized food system is uniquely vulnerable to disease and even to a terrorist attack. Also, because concentrated animal feeding operations require the use of antibiotics to keep the herd alive, superbugs with antibiotic resistance are becoming more common.

In the film, Fresh, Missouri natural hog farmer Russ Kremer shares a personal tale of how he almost died from contracting a monster form of strep. The experience convinced him to exterminate his entire herd and start over with a natural herd.

tom-vilsackThe USDA has a long history of using regulations (like HACCP) to protect Big Ag, instead of consumers and small producers. President Obama appointed Tom Vilsack, the “biotechnology governor of the year,” as Secretary of Agriculture. Obama also appointed Monsanto’s Michael Taylor to head the new Food Safety Working Group.

Astute writers and activists caution that even if NAIS is defeated, animal tracing is being snuck into pending legislation, such as HR 2749.

Independent family farmers will have a tough row to hoe trying to convince a Monsanto Administration to do right by small farmers. As they plead with a corporate-owned federal government intent on globalization, the American people may be their best ally.

Buy fresh, locally grown food. Support free range and organic farmers. Yes, healthy food costs more up front. But you save it on the back end, needing fewer doctor visits or pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the diseases (obesity, diabetes, cancer) caused by factory food. You’ll also contribute to your local economy and a healthy environment.

FILMS

Several recent documentaries discuss the difference between natural and factory food production. In addition to The World According to Monsanto, be sure to see the films below (these are my reviews):

FOOD, Inc. Exposes Horrors of a Centralized Food System
 Fresh: How We’re Supposed to Eat
 Our Daily Bread a Radically Silent View of Factory Farming

~~

Rady Ananda’s articles have appeared in several online and print publications, including three books. She graduated in December 2003 from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a BS in Natural Resources.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NAIS – A Way to Control Rural Population

Jul 12

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

By Pat Kopecki

Source: Wilson County News

July 7, 2009

Agriculture leaders, as well as farmers and ranchers, are watching the outcome of the many congressional bills that are being discussed on Capitol Hill. They question whether farmers and ranchers will survive if additional permits and taxation are implemented. Two of the issues currently being discussed are the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that is included in House Resolution (HR) 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, and the probable taxation of cattle by means of changes in the Clean Air Act.

Those who have followed the NAIS controversy may have read editorials written by Henry Lamb, chairman of Sovereignty International Inc.

“The NAIS is an important part of controlling the rural population,” Lamb said.

Lamb, in a June e-mail interview, explained how NAIS opponents have linked the identification program to Agenda 21.

Lamb said, “NAIS is not a direct result of a specific recommendation set forth in Agenda 21. It is consistent, however, with the policy goals and recommendations of Agenda 21, in that the concept emerged from committees of the World Trade Organization, and was quickly incorporated into the ’sustainable development’ concept which requires government planning and control.”

“NAIS will be devastating to small farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, and all livestock animal owners,” Lamb said. “The regulatory burden is economically unbearable, but this is only a symptom of the basic problem: NAIS ignores the Constitutional guarantees of privacy and security from an intrusive government (Fourth Amendment).”

Lamb has produced several videos on the NAIS issue and sustainable development, which can be found on Sovereignty’s Web site. In one, Lamb addresses how the government may enter private property, citing data from the American Planning Association publication titled, “Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines.”

“The model legislation contained in this book [“Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines”] provides many ways for government officials to enter private property and impose fines, and in some cases, actually ‘take’ private property without just compensation,” Lamb said. “One of the great concerns about NAIS is that once private property is registered in the program, no one knows what rights the federal government may have to the property. Since there is no law yet, nor any published regulations, no one can know what rights the USDA may claim. It is reasonable to conclude that they would claim the right to enter the property to ensure that animal counts and other information has been reported accurately,” Lamb said.

Lamb foresees that NAIS will aid in the implementation of the cattle gas tax being discussed under the proposed changes in the Clean Air Act because of the April 17 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding regarding greenhouse gases.

“NAIS, if implemented, will give government absolute control over the production of all livestock products, not only by permits and punishment, but by direct taxation as well. With every livestock premises and every livestock animal tagged and reported to a government database, it would be a simple matter to levy a tax on every animal — such as the EPA’s recently proposed flatulence tax — and enforce collection of the tax by direct confiscation, if necessary,” Lamb said.

In another video regarding NAIS, Lamb mentions Kansas State University, which conducted the cost benefit analysis of the NAIS program. He identifies this university as the same university that received a grant for the establishment of an animal identification center. Lamb believes this “constitutes a conflict of interest.”

The public who closely watched the NAIS hearing sessions across the nation, including one in Austin, may have noticed how the government tried to use the consensus method.

In the video, “Sustainable America … A New Consensus,” Lamb explains that consensus is not an agreement, but the absence of an expressed opposition.

Lamb said that the USDA “set out to ‘listen’ to individuals in the morning, and hold break-out sessions in the afternoon conducted by trained facilitators to achieve ‘consensus’ around seven specific questions.

“We [the Sovereignty group] were able to inform and educate local grass-roots leaders in every city as to how to avoid the ‘consensus’ process and take control over the meetings. These folks were extremely successful and completely overwhelmed the USDA,” Lamb said.

Lamb warns the public in a March 14 press release titled, “Lawmakers trash the Constitution,” that the government will make NAIS mandatory through HR 875 or a similar bill.

Tags: , , , , , , ,