Welcome to Naisinfocentral and Animal Disease Traceability

Eminent Domain

Animal Disease Traceability
Hot Alerts-New
NAIS "Official" USDA Documents
What is Premises Identification?
What is Animal Identification?
What is Animal Tracking?
Senators Response to NAIS
USDA Premises Registration Numbers
Camelid Working Group
Cattle Working Group
Equine Working Group
Equine Citizens Working Group
Goat Working Group
Poultry Working Group
Sheep Working Group
Swine Working Group
NAIS on YouTube
United Nations System
Alabama NAIS
Alaska NAIS
Arizona NAIS-NO NAIS State
Arkansas NAIS
Australia - NLIS
California NAIS
Colorado NAIS
Florida NAIS
Idaho NAIS
Illinois NAIS
Indiana NAIS
Kansas NAIS
Kentucky NAIS-Voluntary
Louisiana NAIS
Maine NAIS
Massachusetts NAIS
Michigan Nais-Mandatory
Minnesota NAIS
Mississippi NAIS
Missouri NAIS
Montana NAIS
Nevada NAIS
New Hampshire
New Mexico NAIS
New York NAIS
New Zealand-NAIT
North Carolina NAIS
North Dakota NAIS- Resolution
Oklahoma NAIS *Bill introduced
Oregon NAIS
Pennsylvania NAIS
South Carolina NAIS
South Dakota NAIS
Tennessee NAIS
Texas NAIS
Utah NAIS-Voluntary
Vermont NAIS-No funding request
Virginia NAIS
Washington NAIS
Washington D.C. NAIS
Wisconsin NAIS-Mandatory
Wyoming NAIS-Jt Resolution to Congress against NAIS
NAIS Cooperative Agreements
Traceability Equals COOL
Digital Angel
GIS Mapping
Are we all Mis-Informed?
Bruce Knight
Quotes with a Capital V
USDA Blunders
Approved Tag Resellers
Is NAIS Voluntary?
Talking Points for NO NAIS
RFID Chips
RFID pg 2
Digital Angel
What will it Cost?
Articles of Importance to NAIS pg 1
Articles of Importance to NAIS pg2
Senators on NAIS
Hay Growers
USDA DataMining
National Agricultural Statistics Service-NASS
National Farmers Union
4-H & NAIS
Bird Flu
Vets & NAIS
State Government is Watching
Pork Magazine
12 Questions to ASK about NAIS
Reportable Diseases
SPS Agreements
Sustainable Development and or Agenda 21
Codex Alimentarius
A visit from the USDA
Current Equine Outbreaks
Real ID / NAIS Comparison
No NAIS Sites
Dogs going NAIS
The Paradigm Shift: Total Transformation
Eminent Domain
Food Safety
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
Delphi Technique
Are your pet foods "scientifically" made like you think?
NAIS is Censored by the Media
Guide to Good Farming Practices

Enter subhead content here

Posted 03-23-07
FAIRFAX, VA --  Utah’s current law limiting eminent domain was dealt a devastating blow when Governor Jon Huntsman signed House Bill 365
into law on Tuesday.

The bill, which would allow seizure of homes, business and properties as long as 80% of the neighbors and 2/3s of the agency board approve, had drawn the ire of community leaders and Americans for Limited Government, a non-profit organization that works to promote property rights and other civil liberties.

“This is a sad day for the people of Utah,” said Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government.

“This bill opens up the flood gates for city government officials to take any home, church or small business they want,” Wilson added. “You’ll see legal challenges when people realize this is a piece of unconstitutional legislation.”

Wilson ended his comments with a quote from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (1941-54). “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of
worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections.”

“The people of Utah oppose eminent domain for anything other than the best possible public use. It is a dark and sad day when their government allows
their basic right to be put in jeopardy,” concluded Wilson.

Read Agenda 21, do a search on Communitarian , do a Search on NGO or Non-Governmental Organization. It is about Creating taxes but really its a scam on the community and its happening in your community right now because you the tax payer will pay and pay big time.

The Big Box Swindle: The True Cost of the Mega-Retailers http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/

House not for sale

Can the government force you to sell your house in the name of new development?
January 6, 2005: 12:30 PM EST
By Sarah Max, CNN/Money staff writer

Salem, Ore. (CNN/Money) – The neighborhood of Fort Trumbull in New London, Conn., isn't on the National Register of Historic Places. But it is historically significant to the people who live there.

Bill Von Winkle made a nice living off his rental income in New London, Conn.

Wilhelmina Dery, 87, was born in her century-old house near the Thames River.

Her son, Matt, and daughter-in-law, Suzanne, live next door with their teenage son, Andrew. Among their most precious possessions: the garden planted by Matt's grandmother, and the kitchen doorway where they've charted Andrew's height over the years.

The Derys' neighbors have their own, similar stories.

Bill Von Winkle bought his first building in the neighborhood 20 years ago, and went to work making sandwiches in the downstairs deli and renovating the upstairs apartments.

Susette Kelo meticulously restored her small pink Victorian house.

So when the New London Economic Development   (NGO) Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.

Their property, they said, is not for sale.

In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.

According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.

Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.

Taking for the greater good

In February, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that is representing seven Fort Trumbull owners for free, will argue in the U.S. Supreme Court that the city of New London has abused its use of eminent domain.

Susette Kelo's house has been condemned for economic development.

The case, Kelo v. City of New London, will decide whether the U.S. Constitution's definition of "public use" includes private developments like condos and casinos. The decision will have implications through the country.

The Institute for Justice argues that displacing property owners for private development is not legal. "The Constitution says [eminent domain] should be used for a public use -- a road, a court house, a military base. Not a Wal-Mart," said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the institute.

According to a study of court papers and published accounts covering a five-year period, the institute found more than 10,000 examples of property being condemned under eminent domain for the benefit of private parties.

The city of New London and other cities using eminent domain in the interest of urban renewal argue that such private projects are for public use, even if the public only benefits indirectly.

"This is a tool that is important to local governments because it allows them to revitalize areas that otherwise would not get revitalized," said Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel for the League of Minnesota Cities, which is filing a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of New London.

Cities want to attract new businesses and developers to their urban centers rather than contributing to sprawl by building in the suburbs, he said. But they can only do so if they can get existing owners to sell.

"Often times there might be one or two owners who will not go along with the voluntary sales situation," he said. "The question comes up, 'Do you stop the entire project because one or two won't sell, or do you use eminent domain to encourage that activity?'"

Encourage isn't a word that Joy and Carl Gamble of Norwood, Ohio associate with eminent domain.

The retirees are scheduled to be evicted from their home of 35 years in early February to make way for Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million development with offices, shops, housing and restaurants.

In this case, the city of Norwood voted to exercise eminent domain after a study -- which was funded by the developers of Rookwood Exchange -- determined that the Gamble's neighborhood is blighted.

The Gambles say they're proud of their house.

"Blight 50 years ago entailed serious problems and neglect," said Bullock, citing cracked sidewalks and weeds as examples of blight given in the study. Now, he said, blight is just an excuse for the government to take land from one party and give it to another.

"The easy story is to wrap the Gambles in the American flag and say, 'It's not right,'" said Richard Tranter, an attorney representing Rookwood Partners, adding that it's not unusual for cities to ask developers to pay for studies and other expenses related to development. "But it's not that easy."

Norwood is a doughnut hole in the middle of Cincinnati that is about to declare a fiscal emergency, according to Tranter. What's more, the Gamble's neighborhood is cut off from the rest of the city by a major freeway and roads feeding into that freeway.

"With the exception of the Gambles, every resident is saying they want to get out of the neighborhood," he said. "An 80-year old blind widow called it a blessing."

Tranter says the developer has signed contracts with 65 residents to buy their property for no less than 25 percent above market value, pending the outcome of the Gamble's appeal.

Still, the Gambles don't want to sell for any price.

"We're very proud of this house. It's extremely well built," said Joy.

"We raised our children here. All of our memories are here," she said. "We don't want to move, especially for a shopping mall."  Top of page

Do you smell Agenda 21 ? Grant money for land, How do you condemn property that no one uses?  

Private land or public space?

Family’s property eyed for park
Matt Batcheldor
The olympian

OLYMPIA - A second Olympia family that doesn't want to sell its land for a city park faces condemnation of its property.

The city says it wants 3.69 of the 10 acres Sue Haskin and Errol Dye own at 3414 Mud Bay Road.

"We were absolutely devastated by this, by this whole proposal," said Haskin, director of community relations for the Tumwater School District.

The City Council was set to consider the item Tuesday, but it was pulled from the agenda Friday because members want more time to study the situation.

The council tabled an ordinance to take 1.72 acres of Carl and Susan Ott's land at its Feb. 13 meeting after the Otts and about 30 neighbors showed up to voice their opposition.

Associate Parks Director David Hanna said the council will study the item in a closed session Tuesday. State law allows the meeting to be closed because the topic is a real-estate transaction.

Hanna said the city wants Haskin and Dye's land for the same reasons it wants the Otts' land: Their neighborhood lacks parks, there are few undeveloped sites nearby, and theirs is the only land of adequate size that falls in the department's budget.

The city also must act before the end of the year or it will lose part of the bond money it's using to pay for parks acquisition, Hanna said.

"I think it would be fair to say this (land) is the best of what's available," he said.

Dye said the tree-studded land has been in his family's hands for more than 100 years, and they have no intention of developing it. He questioned the parks department's methods.

"How do you get a property for a nice public place? By taking it?" he said. "That's just not right."

Haskin and Dye's situation is almost identical to the Otts'.

Haskin and Dye received a letter in early 2005 asking them to consider selling their land to the city and to contact the city if interested.

They weren't, so they never called, Dye said.

Almost two years later, on Dec. 3, 2006, parks employee Dave Okerlund called Dye and reiterated the city's interest in the park. He said he had permission to "aggressively seek" the property, with condemnation as an option, if Dye wouldn't sell, Dye said.

Dye told Okerlund that the land wasn't for sale.

On Dec. 5, the couple received a formal letter from the city asking them to negotiate the sale of the property or it would be condemned.

Haskin said her neighborhood has plenty of parks and playgrounds. The 165-acre Grass Lake Park nearly abuts their fence line. Yauger Park is nearby, and playgrounds and athletic areas are at McLane, Hansen and Garfield elementary schools.

But Hanna said the parks department wants more; its goal is to have a park within a mile's walk of anyone in the city.

Hanna said the parks department has taken land by eminent domain once since he started in 1990, and there was no opposition. In that case, the city condemned a rail line to clear up ownership issues and build the Woodland Trail, he said. Land elsewhere

In separate, noncontroversial action during its Feb. 13 meeting, the City Council authorized paying the Olympia School District $144,000 to buy 2.21 acres for a park near 10th Avenue and McCormick Street.

What the Kelo decision says is that any individual's land, home, or business can be taken for public benefit.  In the case of New London, Connecticut's taking of the homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors, the potential for increasing tax revenues was the bottom line for the city. 
Key words to look up: Sustainable Developement, Agenda 21 (your state)
Communitarian,  Non Government Organizations-NGO,  Environmentalists

Organized Theft: Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and Kelo

by Tom DeWeese  (July 3, 2005)

Put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. You buy a home for your family. Perhaps it's even handed down from your father or grandfather. It's a place you can afford in a neighborhood you like. The children have made friends.  You intend to stay for the rest of your life.

As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing set for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to you, certain city officials are meeting around a table with developers. In front of them are maps, plats and photographs – of your home. They talk of dollars – big dollars. Tax revenues for the city, huge profits for the developer. A shopping center with all the trimmings begins to take shape. You’re not asked for input or permission. You’re not even notified until the whole project is finalized and the only minor detail is to get rid of you.

Then the pressure begins. A notice comes in the mail telling you that the city intends to take your land. An offer of compensation is made, usually below the market price you could get if you sold it yourself. The explanation given is that, since the government is going to take the land, it’s not worth the old market price. Some neighbors begin to sell and move away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounts on you to sell. Visits from government agents become routine. Newspaper articles depict you as unreasonably holding up community progress. They call you greedy. Finally, the bulldozers move in on the properties already sold. The neighborhood becomes unlivable. It looks like a war zone.

Like being attacked by a conquering army, you are finally surrounded, with no place to run, but the courts. However, you're certain of victory. The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How can a government possibly be allowed to take anyone's home for private gain? 

Under any circumstances this should be considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets or those of their friends it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

Finally, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shock the nation by ruling that officials who have behaved like Tony Soprano are in the right and you have to vacate your property.

These four men and one woman have ruled that the United States Constitution is truly meaningless. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After declaring that all property is subject to the whim of a government official, it’s just a short trip to declaring that government can now confiscate anything we own; anything we create; anything we believe.

Astonishing. The members of the Supreme Court have nothing to do but defend the Constitution and keep it the pure document the Founding Fathers created to recognize and protect the rights with which we were born. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, never worrying about job security with their life-time appointments. And yet, they have obviously missed finding a copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government would work. They have missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision – unless implementing another agenda was their purpose.

I don’t have the benefit of the Justices’ grand staffs or unending salaries. But just a little research has turned up pretty much everything Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer would have needed to reach a logical conclusion that protection of private property rights are the most important rights, vital to the very foundation of a free society.  

Our Founding Fathers left no doubt in their writings, their deeds, or their governing documents as to where they stood on the vital importance of private property. John Locke, the man whom the Founders followed as they created this nation said, “Government has no other end than the preservation of property.” John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” 

One would be hard pressed to find a single word in the writings of the Founding Fathers to support the premise that it’s okay to take private property for economic development. To the contrary, they believed that the root of economic prosperity is the protection of private property.

So how did Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer miss such a rock solid foundation of American law? Perhaps they didn’t. Perhaps they chose to ignore it in favor of another agenda. Specifically, Agenda 21.

For several years, certain members of the Supreme Court have been discussing the need to review international law and foreign court decisions to determine U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Justice Breyer has been the most outspoken for this policy, saying, “We face an increasing number of domestic legal questions that directly implicate foreign or international law.”

What international laws are these? In general, the most pervasive are a series of UN international treaties, including several that address issues of climate, resource use, biological diversity, and community development. Specifically, Agenda 21, signed by the United States at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992, calls for implementing what former Vice President Al Gore called a “wrenching transformation” of our nation, through a policy called Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is the official policy of the United States and almost every single city and small burg in the nation. 

Sustainable Development is top-down control, a ruling principle that affects nearly every aspect of our lives, including; the kind of homes we may live in; water policy that dictates the amount each American may use in a day; drastic reductions of energy use; the imposition of public transportation; even the number of inhabitants that may be allowed inside city borders. Most Americans have heard of a small part of this policy operating under the name Smart Growth. Agenda 21 outlines specific goals and a tight timetable for implementation. In June, 2005, the UN held a major gathering in San Francisco where the mayors of cities from across the nation and around the world gathered to pledge to impose Sustainable polices. 

In order to meet such goals, federal, state and local governments are scrambling to impose strict policies on development and land use. The use of Eminent Domain has become a favorite tool. Sustainable Development calls for partnerships between the public sector (your local government) and private businesses.

Now, as the public/private partnerships move to enforce Sustainable Development in local communities, an unholy alliance is also forming, allowing corrupt politicians to line their pockets and gain power as they partner with select businesses and developers to build personal wealth and power. They plot to take land that isn’t theirs for personal gain, while claiming it’s for the “public good.” That’s all the excuse they’ve needed to hide their true intent.

However, things have been changing as such brutal, organized theft has spread across the nation in the name of community development and environmental protections.   American have started to fight back to protect their property. In Oregon, people went to the ballot box and shocked lawmakers by passing Measure 37, which says the government must either pay full price for any land taken, or waive the regulation and leave the property owner alone. In Wisconsin, the state legislature passed a bill to stop Smart Growth policies that are destroying property owners. In Michigan, the state Supreme Court overturned the precedent-setting ruling it made more than 20 years ago that allowed the use of Eminent Domain in taking property for private use. In fact, it was that original ruling that had been used by communities across the nation to justify their own Eminent Domain takings.

Clearly, the nation has started to rise up to stop this assault on private property. Without the power to grab property at will, the ability for communities to implement Sustainable Development has come into question.

Those who support Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 needed something big to put things back on track. The Supreme Court, which has already stated that it must look to international laws and treaties to decide American law, provided the answer. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer chose Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 over the Constitution of the United States.

However, the effort may well be backfiring on the Sustainablists as the nation is reacted in force to protect property rights. Now, state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are rushing to produce legislation to restore property rights protections. Even Americans who have rarely uttered a political thought are suddenly becoming feverish with zeal for the Fifth Amendment. Americans may be learning all over again what the Founding Fathers knew – that the right to own and control private property is the most important right

That is all well and good, of course, but Americans must do much more than just get upset. They need to get behind those legislative efforts at every level of government to assure passage. They must dig in at the local level to foil efforts by their mayors and city councils to impose Eminent Domain against their neighbors. We must run this organized theft (now masquerading as the “common good”) out of town on a rail. And don’t forget to leave room on that rail for Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer.


Slouching Toward Global Enslavement 
By Joan Veon

Last year was another instrumental year in the advance of world government. While most commentators will concentrate on popularized events, many will not discuss the latest steps taken to cement the final touches to a world governmental structure that has been in the making for the last 150 years or so. In order to understand the importance of 2005's global achievements in the march towards global governance which is the integration of the world's peoples, countries, and philosophies, we must briefly visit the past.
Let us re-count the 1913 birth of the U.S. tax code. Over the past 92 years, the burden of taxation has been shifted from the highest income tax to the middle class as income tax rates under Ronald Reagan dropped from 60% to 35%. That same year, the Federal Reserve Act was passed. What this meant is that a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, now manages the monetary and financial system of the United States of America. As such, they have greater power than our president and Congress as they control the banking system and the country's business cycle.
You will remember that the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to eliminate the ups and downs of the business cycle. However, the country has not experienced that as it appears that the Fed has embraced Joseph Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction which is based on the boom/bust business cycle (Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1942, p.83). Will the American people ever figure out that the reason why we cannot forgive ourselves the interest on the national debt is because we owe it to a private corporation and they want what the interest which Congress originally agreed to when they passed the Federal Reserve Act. If you want to know where they get their money to lend to our government-they print it!
Beginning in 1944, the walls between the nation-states began to fall as a new international infrastructure was set in place above the nation-states. One fine example of this was the United States signing in 1947 the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs which became the World Trade Organization in 1994. With the birth of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank, the financial and economic barriers fell, with the birth of the United Nations, the political barriers fell, with the birth of the World Trade Organization, the trade barriers fell, with the birth of the International Criminal Court, the legal barriers fell, and as a result of 9/11, military and intelligence barriers fell between the nation-states. Thus today, we are in a borderless world.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon, issued Executive Order No. 11647 which divided the United States into ten regions, each with its own administrator who then reports directly to the president. Described as "metro government" or "regional government", it decreases the lines of power and authority which centralizes all the decision-making in the White House. Today, Metro or Regional Government is alive and well as it is being given greater position not only in all of the new rebuilding of the new development plans being made public by Mississippi and New Orleans, but with many states trying to pass laws to consolidate the local, county, and village levels of government. Furthermore, our government has circumvented the power of the states by now taking the funds the states send them and re-distributing it to the metro or regional government instead! Many of the infrastructure needs such as transportation, waste, water, etc. are all on a "regional" basis.
In 1990, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales put together a new organization, the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders' Forum, with the purpose of setting up public-private partnerships-PPP between governments, business, and non-governmental organizations. Basically, public-private partnerships provide a way for corporations to become "co-managers" with government regarding the governance of the country. The Prince admitted in a speech while he was in the United States that he met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to see if business and government could work together. What came out of their discussions was the U.N. Global Compact.
Today, thousands of public-private partnerships are operating world-wide and are now commonplace. They include partnerships for schools, sewer systems, transportation, water, utilities, etc. In fact the proposed Trans Texas Corridor will be a PPP. At the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development, over 250 PPP's were formed-that activity was unprecedented. One is the Congo Basin Forest Partnership which involves 14 governments, including the U.S. and 8 African countries, 8 environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund along with the American Forest and Paper Association which represents 200 companies. This partnership includes 74 million acres of land in Africa. Furthermore, there are dozens of these types of complex partnerships that the U.S. has entered into that include countries around the world.
In 1992, the UN held the "Rio Earth Summit" in which those attending, which numbered less than 30,000, agreed to Agenda 21 which is a complete reordering of the planet. It basically elevates the earth above the value of man as man's value is dependent on if he or she can produce. It basically says that the earth's resources need to be counted, controlled, and monitored for "future generations." Fifteen years later, every country in the world has changed how their government operates as sustainable development is carried out worldwide. One of the treaties encompassed in Agenda 21 is the UN Biological Diversity Treaty which says man has to be sequestered into "growth areas" so that the rest of the country can be put back for the purpose of re-wilding or allowing animals to roam freely.
In 2000, the United Nations was given an overhaul in which more power was given to the Secretary-General and the General Assembly. It was also given the ability to have its own rapid defense force. Furthermore, it was given the ability to raise its own finances through various schemes to be determined in the future. Lastly, the UN unveiled the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease worldwide which will demand new ways to find new sources of funds. With this background, we can now understand the events of 2005.
Since 9/11 which tore down the final barriers between the nation-states which were the intelligence and military barriers, the world has entered the "finishing stage." By this we are talking about finding ways to integrate the people of the world so that they are one and feel they have common concerns-or catastrophic occurrences which blend the peoples together as one. The people now have to be brought together as one people. The South Seas Tsunami did just that. The outpouring of aid from around the world was unprecedented. Even Presidents Bush and Clinton teamed up to raise monies. Schools, churches, the Boy Scouts, department stores, football teams, singers, actors, and famous people from across the U.S. raised monies.
The U.S. gave $1B in gifts and donations alone. At the 2005 World Economic Forum, Sharon Stone put up $10,000 and challenged attendees to give money for the tsunami. Within minutes, she raised $1M. Interestingly enough, a number of the corporations of the Global Compact were there, even before governments could get aid to the devastated area. This global outpouring of compassion helped to solidify the people of the world. Then Hurricanes Katrina and Rita continued the compassionate response that only comes from the most sacred place a person has, the heart. Now it was time for other countries to come to the aid of America.
Since there are no longer any barriers between the nation-states, that means the poor, starving, and diseased of the world are everyone's responsibility, or so they would have us believe. The Fabian socialists would call this a transfer of wealth. At the 2004 Group of Eight meeting in Sea Island, Georgia and then at the 2005 World Economic Forum in January, French President Jacques Chirac called for a global tax for the poor. In Davos, he specified a tax on airline tickets. At the July, 2005 Group of Eight meeting in Scotland, it was high on the agenda for the heads of state with the French specifying the parameters. When I asked Chirac if there would be other kinds of global taxes if this was successful, he told me they had many other types planned. In fact, right before Christmas, the French Government passed a levy tax on airline tickets to generate $236M a year for health programs aimed at helping the world's poorest countries. Of course this measure was applauded by the United Nations as a creative way of raising money. Perhaps I should mention that this is the first time since the Roman Empire in the time of the birth of Jesus, that a global tax has been passed.
With regard to regionalism, while the U.S. has been divided up nationally, we are also part of a hemispheric free trade bloc known as the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA. While the FTAA will involve all 34 countries in this hemisphere, it is being implemented gradually. The North American Free Trade Area-NAFTA was passed in 1994 and in 2005, the Central American Free Trade Agreement-CAFTA was passed. Because of the opposition to this bill, Bush made a special trip to Capital Hill where he twisted arms by granting over 6,000 pork barrel promises which were funded by the Transportation Bill pass before the summer recess.
It should be noted that any type of regional government-either within the U.S. or within the hemisphere is government by appointed officials and not ELECTED officials. Just as the UN system is based on appointed officials, so too is regional government which is the extension of the UN form of government. In other words, the ability of the people to have a say will not be through elected officials but by APPOINTED officials. In Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance in 1995 wrote, "The UN must prepare for a time when regionalism becomes more ascendant worldwide, and even help the process." This brings us to the new actors that are now involved in governance.
The globalists do not like to refer to the new structure which is being birthed in the world as "world government." Instead, they prefer to call it "global governance." This term refers to all the new actors that are making their views known. In the past, at the United Nations General Assembly, only member-states made speeches during the General Assembly, but because of the rise of corporations through the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, the International Chamber of Commerce and other international groups, business and non-governmental organizations now give presentations. Also, both of these groups freely lobby at the UN, at global conferences, and nationally.
Foundations have long been an actor on the international stage. Of the top 50 foundation in the United States in 2003, the Ford Foundation ranks No.2 in size at $10.6B, behind the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at $26.8B. The total yearly giving of the top 50 foundations is well over $133.6B. Foundations play a very major role today in making and changing society and values. Rene Wormser wrote in 1958, "The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reach far into government, into the policymaking circles of Congress and into the State Department. This has been effected through the pressure of public opinion, mobilized by the instruments of the foundations" (Foundations-Their Power and Influence). The question asked by the Reece Committee which delved into the power of foundations was, "To what extent, if any, are the funds of the large foundations aiding and abetting Marxist tendencies in the United States and weakening the love which every American should have for his way of life?"
At the heart of Agenda 21 is sustainable development which supports "highest and best use" of the world's resources which includes you and me. As a result of Agenda 21's, Biological Diversity Treaty, man needs to be sequestered into growth areas. In 1997, the state of Maryland was the first to pass "Smart Growth" legislation which designates areas of growth that a state will allow in order to support those areas with infrastructure. Non-growth areas are those that will not be supported by the State with tax dollars for infrastructure. Maryland's Smart Growth legislation was in effect the passage of the UN Biological Diversity Treaty.
In 2005, personal property rights, the cornerstone of American civilization, were dealt a severe blow with the Supreme Court Kelo vs. New London ruling which says that the city had the right to use eminent domain to force highest and best use of property that would create jobs and increase tax revenue for the public good. Around the U.S., the use of eminent domain is gaining popularity. Now everyone's home and property is at risk.
In September, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour brought together a team of 110 urban planners in architecture, regional and community planning, civil and transportation engineering, environmentalism, codes and laws, retail, economics, public process and communication who came together to envision and plan to rebuild 11 coastal cities and 120 miles of coastal region. Headed up by the Congress for New Urbanism, they are now in the process of obtaining community agreement for their plans. It should be noted that the "new urbanism" which the Congress uses is basically Smart Growth or the UN Biological Diversity Treaty. It encompasses a return to the town planning principles in practice before the automobile, recycling existing buildings and land where possible, promoting a sense of community, revitalizing historic downtowns and residential neighborhood, giving people the option of walking, bilking or taking public transportation, high density building, and sustainable transportation which is mass transit.
The New Urbanism encompasses the sustainable philosophy of highest and best use. Therefore, if there are key neighborhoods that can be rebuilt to attract businesses: hotels, office buildings, convention centers to bring in more tax revenues, those neighborhoods will be subject to eminent domain. The plans drawn up by the Congress for New Urbanism also use regional or metro government as well as public-private partnerships.
It should be noted that at every turn, working behind the scenes is Prince Charles. Not only has he been responsible for the implementation of sustainable development world wide, the establishment of public-private partnerships, but also he has supported the rise of the philosophies encompassed in the "New Urbanism." In this regard, he sent two of his key planners to help rebuild the New South. [To understand "Smart Growth" and Sustainable Development you must see the video "Liberty or Sustainable Development:]
In summary, 2005 moved us closer to world government. There is a continuing revolution over rights, values, property, and form of government. The barriers between the nation-states are gone and in its place is regionalism, supported by public-private-partnership-both advocate a structure change in government and hence, governance. There are new and powerful players that have and are changing societies norms. Transfer of wealth is now under the guise of disaster relief and airline taxes. In addition, our government is working on an "open skies" agreements with all the countries of the world.
Currently they are negotiating with the EU. This means that any airline that we sign the agreement with can fly into U.S. airports and it means that the U.S. would open up the ability of foreigners to purchase our airline companies. Furthermore, the rights of the individual are now filtered through the lenses of sustainable development's "highest and best use." Personal property rights are being diluted as a result of highest and best use. The bottom line is that a permanent revolution is taking place before our very eyes. Unless you connect the dots, you will not see it or understand it.
2006 Joan Veon - All Rights Reserved
Joan Veon is a businesswoman and international reporter, having covered 64 Global meetings around the world in the last ten years. Please visit her website: www.womensgroup.org. To get a copy of her WTO report, send $10.00 to The Women's International Media Group, Inc. P. O. Box 77, Middletown, MD 21769. For an information packet, please call 301-371-0541

The Keene City Council Votes In Favor of Eminent Domain
Free Keene

The Keene City Council has voted 9 to 6 in favor of of forcibly taking private property from a Keene resident for “the good of the community.” For years, the council and Keene residents have debated over whether or not a roundabout should be built at the Main, Winchester, and Marlboro street intersection, but
until recently eminent domain was not on the table.
Thomas Eaton, who owns the land in question, was considering selling the coveted piece of property to the city of Keene, but when the project skyrocketed over the projected budget to over $4 million, he withdrew the offer.

The city of Keene has no right to take private property from anyone for any reason. This country was founded on property rights, and no government, even for the good of the “community,” should be allowed to violate any rights. Rights by definition cannot be taken away, and if the city is permitted to take private property, then property rights must not exist.

Eaton is not alone in his fight to keep his property. Many Keene residents think Eaton should be allowed to keep his land. Although non-scientific, WKBK’s web
poll shows 85% of respondents do not want eminent domain to be used in this case. The Keene City Council clearly is not listening to the opposition, as
seems to be a recurring theme.

Although many people correctly remember being taught at a young age that taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong, the council
members who voted in favor of eminent domain seem to have lost their moral compasses. They justify their deeds by saying it is not for them, but for the public good. Council member Nathaniel Stout justifies the wrong in taking Eaton’s property by seeing the good in gifting it to the public. He told the Keene
Sentinel “Nobody likes eminent domain, but in this particular case, it’s not just taking. There’s give too.” With Stout’s reasoning, a bank robber should not be
arrested for robbing a bank if he shares the bounty. While a nice story, it is not the job of the council members to act as modern day Robin Hoods.

The public needs to stand up against the council members who are pushing eminent domain through. There will be a public hearing on the issue on March
19 at 6 pm. If the public accepts the stealing of Eaton’s property, anyone’s, including the current coucil member’s property, could be next.

Beware Metro And Regional Government



  • Chapter I
    Flagrant Violation of the U.S. Constitution

  • Chapter II
    Taxation Without Representation

  • Chapter III
    Nixon Endorses Kennedy’s Dangerous Executive Orders
    Role of Federal Regional Councils in Implementing Executive Orders

  • Chapter IV
    Office of Management and Budget - Overseer of Federal Regional Council

  • Chapter V
    C.F.R. Man in Charge of Carrying out Nixon’s Executive Orders

  • Chapter VI
    C.F.R. Members on C.E.D.’S Research and Policy Committee
    C.E.D. Proposals to "Modernize" Local Government
    Abolishing Most Elective Offices at the Local Level
    Abolishing Most Elective Offices at the State Level
    C.E.D. Pushes Metro
    "Professionals" to Replace Elected Officials

  • Chapter VII
    Mail-Order State Constitutions and Laws from "1313"

  • Chapter VIII
    List of City-County Consolidations Since 1957
    Regional Councils - "1313’s" Apparatus at the Local Level

  • Chapter IX
    Present Federal-Grant Programs Will Not be Abolished
    Better Communities Act - Newest Version of Revenue Sharing

  • Chapter X

  • Chapter XI
    Urban Renewal - Vehicle for Seizing Private Property
    Federal Metro Forces City-Suburbs Merger

  • Chapter XII
    "1313" Backs Land-Use Legislation
    "Land-Use" - Vehicle for Regional Government

  • Chapter XIII
    Ten Federal Regional Councils Readying Plans to Rule the 50 States

  • Chapter XIV

  • Chapter XV

Enter supporting content here

Premises Registration will be an "Official" USDA unique seven Character identifier.
In the New User Guide it states on Page 22:
The premises identification number (PIN) is assigned permanently to a geophysical location. If an owner or entity sells his/her farm, the next operators of the premises use the original premises identification number that had been
assigned to that location. If the seller buys a new location to build a new operation that never had livestock, he/she would register that location and obtain a new premises identification number (PIN).

Premises Identification = Encumbrance

Proud member
                                    of the Read the Bills Act Coalition

Comments on the site are very welcomed.. If you see something that is in error, point it out, if you have a document that needs posting, provide the information and if its state specific post the state.. This site is for all livestock owners..