It has been rumored for a couple of weeks that the USDA would be providing an Opt-Out for NAIS since it is now voluntary in order to let people get out of the program who were already enrolled, by their own request or against their will as has happened in a large number of cases. I have been searching the USDA site for details on how to do the Opt-Out without success but today this popped up:
After four days of consideration, Ben Kaczmarski, a spokesman for APHIS, said that since the NAIS is now a voluntary program, the USDA had decided to provide an “OPT OUT” procedure for people who want to withdraw from the NAIS.
These people should file a written request to be removed from the NAIS with their state NAIS coordinator, who can be located here: (link). The state coordinator will validate the request, and forward it to the USDA. The USDA will then, presumably, remove the premises from the database.
-Yahoo News
Previously the USDA said the program was voluntary but that any registrations were permanent which is rather absurd. That is progress. However it is to be noted that the USDA is still not publicizing this. There is no discussion of the Opt-Out option in their FAQ or on the NAIS main web pages. Why are they still hiding this one might wonder…
Dr. Suess couldn’t have done better with this story line!
They never told you
they signed you up!
Then you must guess
if you should request
to be unsigned??????
HUH!!
Comment SUSAN — February 8, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Well, I just submitted a request to be removed, so we shall find out if it works. I was misled and told I had to register in order to join the Scrappie program. When I joined Scrappie, they told me that this was untrue and that our Scrappie here in Missouri is not connected with the feds. Boy I was upset because I had already registered. Will let you know what happens.
[Do keep us posted. -WJ]
Comment diana — February 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
I have sent a written request to my state coordinator (NYS) about a week ago. I read about the “opt out option” in a piece written by Henry Lamb. I have heard nothing yet. I will let you know what happens.
Comment James Colbert — February 8, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
I’m wondering though - if your *State* has implemented mandatory registration, will it make a difference to opt out?
[I doubt it. That is likely why requests to opt-out are filtered through the state coordinators. The USDA is hoping to make NAIS mandatory on the state levels and thus force it on us all even though they get to claim it is voluntary, at the federal level. -WJ]
Comment Lynn — February 8, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
So am I to understand that the Whittakers were signed up because they simply re-registered their brand?
I, too, live in Idaho and have not heard of this happening to anyone I know.
I read the article and am not sure I understand, as it is like most of todays newsletting in that you get just enough info to confuse the issue, or a blown out of proportion opinion of the media issuing it.
I wonder if my family’s farm is registered without our knowledge, and if a person has any certain way of finding out.
If one were to file to opt out, certainly you would be fortifying there info base, should they not already have it!
Seems sort of a catch 22!!
[Idaho did 13,907 false registrations into the Premises ID system last year. See this article. They have since promised to stop their bad behavior and not sign up people without their permission. But I wonder if they would have stopped had people not made objections. I would recommend you contact the state of ID and find out if you are already signed up. -WJ]
Comment Blaine Hubsmith — February 8, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
This USDA sitelists the states and their percentage of premise id registration: link
Idaho sticks out with 95.6% of premises registered. Idaho’s border states have 6.3% (Washington), 8.3% (Oregon), 3.9% (Montana), and 9.9% (Wyoming).
Any “voluntary” state with a high percentage of sign-ups should raise a red flag of whether or not registration was done without the knowledge of the individual.
Comment Ann Nelson — February 9, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Cooperative Agreements. Someone was asking about them a while back:
President Bush’s 2007 Farm Bill contains billion$ in new spending to advance the noble cause of government control of the Nation’s farm and ranch lands. The Bush plan adds $7.8 Billion to conserve and protect our natural resources by:
Increasing by 50% the acreage to gain protection under the Wetlands Reserve Program from 2.3 to 3.5 million acres - a total of 250,000 acres will be made available for enrollment annually;
creating a Regional Water Enhancement Program (RWEP) with an additional $1.75 Billion in funding over ten years;
$175 million a year will go into large scale, coordinated water conservation projects to improve water quality and quantity on a watershed scale. Bush’s 2008 budget includes tax incentives that promote voluntary land conservation and provide an economic benefit for family farmers and ranchers. Bush wants to make permanent a 2006 law that expanded federal tax incentives for conservation easements. The new law raises the deduction for conservation easement donations from 30 percent to 50 percent and to 100 percent for qualifying ranchers and farmers. The law also extended the carry-forward period for the donor to take the deductions from 5 to 16 years. The law will expire at the end of 2007, and Bush wants a permanent extension to allow time for the education and outreach to build awareness and acceptance of conservation easements.
Comment LuAnn — February 9, 2007 @ 11:16 am
NH shows a whopping 36 volunteers. I translate that as a pretty resounding NO! to NAIS.
Comment Sue F — February 9, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
In the comment by Ann (#6), if you go to the link and look at Wisconsin, how can you have 108+% registration? Must be a great calculator that someone is using!
[Aye, the issue is they don’t really know how many farms there are out there. At one point WI was claiming they had 400% of the horses registered. What they should logically do is increase the number of farms if they exceed that in registrations. But that would be too logical. On a side note, the USDA reduced the count of farms at one point this fall. My suspicion is that they did this so they could appear to be meeting their goals. All spin, all the time. -WJ]
Comment Blaine Hubsmith — February 9, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Folks: Slightly off topic I know…but just today (02/09) our local newspaper (Reading Eagle) for Berks County, PA ran an editorial strongly opposed to the “little publicized” national identification card.
They cited such arguments as; cost, lack of data security, threats to withhold federal funds for states that don’t participate, and the erosion of our personal freedoms.
Only thing wrong with this editorial? This is the same paper that published an editorial last April highly in FAVOR of the NAIS!
Yet…the same arguments they made against the national identity card hold true against the NAIS and premise id!!
More media hypocrisy? You bet! I wrote them a letter advising them of same. But this is the world we live in today…the newspaper opposes one BIG BROTHER law, but supports another.
Neil W.
[Perhaps as urbanites they feel that the NAIS is not so bad. They feel threatened by not just livestock disease but by livestock. They think the NAIS will affect just the farmers so it is not so bad. They fail to see how it will affect them. How do we reach urban folk in such a way that they understand the concerns of those of us who will be harmed by NAIS? I don’t know. I’m asking. -WJ]
Comment Neil W. — February 9, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Just sent in my request to “opt-out” here in Massachusetts. It will be interesting to find out what the response will be given the fact that MA is one state that started sending in information without farm owners knowledge or consent saying it was in “our best interest” that they do so. Blah, blah, blah.
Comment Gwen S. — February 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Walter (and all): This open letter from Dr. Mary Zanoni deserves its own article. But in the meantime, let me post it here (with your kind indulgence):
I cannot possibly understate the importance of the following letter sent to me today (02/09) for distribution to all opponents of the NAIS. I trust that you will read it carefully and realize that today may be a “red letter” day in the history of our uphill battle against the NAIS. You readers are among the first to have access to this letter. Dr. Mary Zanoni writes:
An Open Letter to the NAIS Opposition Community
by
Mary Zanoni
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York 13617
315-386-3199
mlz@slic.com
Does a Secret Pro-Corporate Agenda Intend to Co-opt the Anti-NAIS Movement?
Who Are the Real “Leaders” Behind Liberty Ark/FARFA?
A Sad Story of Concealed Interests; but With a Hopeful Ending
Many of us who are most strongly opposed to NAIS have noticed that Liberty Ark/FARFA and their de facto leaders, Henry Lamb, Judith McGeary, and Karin Bergener, have taken every opportunity: (1) to promote the type of “voluntary” system specified in the NAIS User Guide, which, as we know too well, inevitably will lead to a mandatory system; and (2) to quiet and blunt the NAIS opposition by touting the supposed “importance” of insignificant minor “victories” against NAIS, many of which are not “victories” at all, but just steps that bring us closer to NAIS.
Most in the antiNAIS community probably do not understand the concealed connections and actions of the main people working on behalf of Liberty Ark/FARFA. Karin Bergener of Liberty Ark works for a company called SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). SAIC is a prominent federal government contractor, the developer of the national DNA database and the gun-purchase background-check database. As described on its website, www.siac.com, SAIC also works in the areas of data-mining and biometric identification. SAIC has been a member of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), presumably because its product lines could be applied to animal identification. As we well know, NIAA has been the driving force behind the development and promotion of a fully mandatory NAIS. Henry Lamb is very much involved in Liberty Ark, but his name appears nowhere on their Steering Committee. In the past, Henry Lamb’s various organizations have been funded and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation. (link) Farm Bureau has been a relentless supporter of a mandatory NAIS. Judith McGeary consistently has supported a “voluntary” government-run NAIS program (such as that the USDA itself now promotes in the User Guide); she has chosen to have her own horses microchipped. As discussed below, McGeary, while sometimes trying to present herself as a proponent of “sustainable” agriculture, has, along with Bergener, secretly embraced support and funding from the anti-environmentalist Lamb.
All this is not to say that these people may not “oppose” NAIS on some level and for some motives; the question is the degree of their opposition, and the authenticity of their motives. NAIS is the very model of how an unresponsive Executive Branch agency can cooperate with a globalist industrial agriculture and a technocratic corporate elite to force an undesired program upon an unwilling populace. So ask yourself whether people aligned with those selfsame industrial/corporate interests are likely to be legitimate opponents of NAIS.
McGeary Supports “Voluntary” Government-Imposed NAIS
Judith McGeary of FARFA and Liberty Ark has made frequent on-the-record statements in support of a “voluntary” government-run NAIS. She testified on September 6, 2006 before the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) that FARFA does not oppose a “voluntary” NAIS program. (link ) In written testimony to a Texas Senate Subcommittee, McGeary stated, in response to a question concerning the viability of a “voluntary” Texas NAIS pending the implementation of a national NAIS, “FARFA does not oppose a voluntary state program.” (Texas Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs, and Coastal Resources, September 6, 2006.) An Austin Chronicle article quoted McGeary as willing to settle for a “compromise” that would create a government-imposed “voluntary” NAIS: “McGeary . . . in negotiations with the TAHC [regarding NAIS] hopes to reach a compromise wherein small operations can comply voluntarily or be exempted altogether.” (link )
Of course, we in the NAIS opposition community know all too well from the USDA’s User Guide for NAIS, and from the actions of various states in forcing farmers into NAIS without their knowledge or consent in the guise of a “voluntary” program, that a “voluntary” NAIS cannot be tolerated, and is not consistent with the positions of groups completely opposed to NAIS, such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association – Massachusetts, Rural Vermont, or the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.
McGeary and the Massachusetts Coordinator of Liberty Ark Worked Diligently to Weaken State Legislation
In Massachusetts, Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass) antiNAIS activists Ben Grosscup and Jack Kittredge were just on the verge of approaching their legislators with antiNAIS legislation to bar completely the Massachusetts premises ID program and allow Massachusetts farmers who had been unjustly placed in premises ID to get their information removed from the database. At this crucial moment, without the knowledge of Jack and Ben, Liberty Ark’s Massachusetts State Coordinator, Pat Stewart, gave legislators a bill that would have established a “voluntary” state-run NAIS. (The truly harmful nature of such legislation is evident from the fact that Massachusetts presently has NO statutory authorization for any state-level NAIS.) When faced with Stewart’s submission, the legislators, at that point unfamiliar with all the nuances of the NAIS fight, were on the verge of accepting this Liberty Ark pro-voluntary NAIS bill for filing. Fortunately, Ben and Jack really stepped up to the plate for all of us, fought hard to get their stop-NAIS bill filed instead, and thought they had this struggle behind them. But then Judith McGeary of FARFA/Liberty Ark contacted Ben and Jack repeatedly, insisting that they accept at least some part of the pro-voluntary NAIS Liberty Ark legislation. (One of McGeary’s objectives was to get the word “sustainable” removed from the bill’s title; Lamb and his ilk are outspoken enemies of “sustainability,” claiming that the concept is some nefarious plot hatched by “environmentalists.”)
Ben and Jack solidly stood their ground and rejected any weakening of the NOFA/Mass bill and made sure their legislators in both chambers would file the NOFA/Mass strong antiNAIS bill. Then Pat Stewart of Liberty Ark, again without telling Ben and Jack, approached a Senate aide with what she claimed was a “compromise” bill. (Remember, Ben and Jack had held their ground and refused to weaken the NOFA/Mass bill, so there never was any “compromise” version of a bill.) In the confusion of the last-minute deadline for filing bills, Stewart somehow got the weak Liberty Ark bill filed. Now NOFA/Mass had to work doubly hard to clean up the confusion and make sure the strong NOFA/Mass bill had been filed properly in both houses of the legislature.
In light of these events, one must ask, why would Judith McGeary and Pat Stewart deliberately work to introduce pro-voluntary NAIS legislation in Massachusetts (a state with NO statutory authority for any version of NAIS), and why would they be so insistent on promoting the weakened legislation, that they would use less-than-open tactics to get it filed?
Henry Lamb and the Early History of Liberty Ark
In early March of 2006, Henry Lamb called me and said that he wanted to sponsor and fund a national group to oppose NAIS. He wanted me to be the leader of this group. He asked me for the names of any people I thought might be suitable to be members of a steering committee for such a group; I suggested Judith McGeary and Karin Bergener, each of whom had independently contacted me and expressed their interest in opposing NAIS. I gave Lamb, Bergener, and McGeary one another’s contact information and Lamb began organizing a series of conference calls for the group to discuss forming the organization that came to be called Liberty Ark.
My first contact with Lamb had taken place a couple of months earlier, when he had asked me if he could reprint one of my early antiNAIS articles in his “Ecologic” magazine. I had never heard of Lamb and, assuming that this was some small ecology publication, I gave him permission for the reprint. Now, in the larger context of the possible formation of Liberty Ark, I was motivated to look more deeply into Lamb’s publications and other activities. It turned out that Lamb’s magazine is in fact not an ecology publication at all, but rather, the opposite – a virulent anti-environmental publication. Lamb himself is best known as a voice for the corporate interests of polluting industries, working to defeat initiatives that would promote clean and livable rural areas for the good of the average people. (link)
As Bergener, McGeary, Lamb, and I continued to discuss the formation of Liberty Ark, Lamb added his son to the group. Meanwhile, I was also taking part in separate conversations among Bergener, McGeary, and myself, in which I was expressing growing misgivings about Lamb’s motives for forming the group in general, and in particular, my fear that Lamb would use Liberty Ark to co-opt the antiNAIS movement into nothing more than an appendage of the pro-corporate, anti-environmental agenda. However, Bergener and McGeary insisted that Lamb’s backing and funding were necessary to the group.
Just as the Liberty Ark website was about to be launched, Lamb told us in a conference call that he was not going to permit his name to be used publicly on the Liberty Ark website as one of the members of the steering committee (albeit he was going to continue to be the funding behind the organization). After that call, I resigned from the Liberty Ark steering committee and severed ties with the group, because I was not willing to participate in any venture that was not revealing the identities of all the persons behind it.
Henry Lamb’s sponsorship of Liberty Ark is confirmed in public documents. If you do a “who is” look-up on www.register.com for libertyark.net, you will find that the Liberty Ark website is owned by a Tennessee company called Earth Work, Inc. In turn, if you search the Tennessee Secretary of State’s corporate records for Earth Work, Inc., you will find that it is a for-profit corporation and that the registered agent for Earth Work, Inc. is Henry Lamb, 175 Shepard Cemetery Lane, Hollow Rock, Tennessee. (In case these records may be changed in the future to obscure the relationship, alternate sources of these pages are being maintained.)
The Talent/Emerson Bill and the Misleading of Missourians
During last fall’s Congressional elections, the Senate seat in Missouri was very closely contested, with former Republican Senator Jim Talent ultimately losing to Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill by a thin margin. Missouri is a hotbed of opposition to NAIS and NAIS was definitely an issue in the Senate race. McCaskill, whose family business was a local feed mill and who therefore had ties to local and small-scale agriculture, consistently opposed NAIS from the beginning of her campaign. Talent, on the other hand, had developed ties to corporate and industrial agriculture during his incumbency and had been primarily a supporter of NAIS before the election. However, as the election season progressed, Talent began to take an ostensible position against NAIS. In early September, Talent suddenly introduced in the Senate legislation that would have given the green light to the USDA’s establishment of a “voluntary” federal NAIS (remember, there has never been, and there is not to this day, any federal statute that actually authorizes ANY element or form of NAIS). Also, Talent’s NAIS legislation would have been a frontal assault on the citizens’ right to know, because it would have prevented federal freedom-of-information disclosure to citizens of information related to NAIS and also, in an outrageous assault on the autonomy of state freedom of information laws, would have prohibited states from allowing disclosure of state information under their own state laws. (109th Congress, S. 3862; companion House bill introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, H.R. 6042.)
Thus, it appeared that the Talent NAIS legislation was deliberately designed to offer false appeasement to potential Missouri antiNAIS voters, while actually facilitating the USDA’s development of NAIS. In sum, the Talent bill was pro-NAIS, and was recognized as such by many of Liberty Ark’s own state coordinators, by the antiNAIS organization Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA, www.vicfa.net) and their legislative counsel, and by me, among many others. Nonetheless, Liberty Ark insisted upon promoting the bill with press releases and an action alert urging their followers to contact legislators in support of the bill. Not surprisingly (now that you know Lamb founded and funds Liberty Ark), Henry Lamb “independently” promoted the Talent bill and for good measure threw in fulsome praise for Liberty Ark (without, of course, ever revealing that he is the force that created and maintains Liberty Ark). (link)
Liberty Ark, Bergener, and McGeary deliberately supported the Talent bill even though they were well aware of the terrible consequences if the bill should pass (thankfully, it didn’t) – namely, the bill’s potential to create the first-ever federal statutory authority for NAIS and its insults to citizens’ rights to government information. Because Bergener and McGeary insisted on supporting the Talent bill against all objections, four of Liberty Ark’s strongest state coordinators resigned over this incident. (Nonetheless, Liberty Ark, in its obsession with creating a misleading impression of its own influence – an obsession discussed in greater detail below – to this day has failed to remove the names of ex-supporters from its website.)
Liberty Ark Lures NAIS Opponents into Slumber with the False Comfort of “Opt Outs”
On January 29, 2007, Liberty Ark’s Karin Bergener and Judith McGeary issued a “press release” loudly trumpeting: “In a dramatic reversal of policy, the USDA has decided to provide an ‘OPT OUT’ procedure for people whose premises have been registered” in NAIS. (On precisely the same date, Henry Lamb posted an article on his website about this “dramatic” development, almost identical in wording to the Liberty Ark “press release.”) The Liberty Ark “press release” went on to suggest that Liberty Ark had somehow discovered or even obtained this supposed boon through a telephone call to the USDA on January 26, 2007.
The truth is that NOFA/Mass, not Liberty Ark, was the first organization to secure a possibility of “opt outs.” NOFA/Mass accomplished this in the summer of 2006, six months prior to Bergener and McGeary’s announcement of a “dramatic reversal.” Moreover, in New York State, apparently as a result of complaints from individual farmers, the state began to offer “opt outs” during the fall of 2006 for animal owners who had been placed in the premises ID program through data-mining, without their prior knowledge or consent. Perhaps most importantly, as NOFA/Mass itself has always indicated, an “opt out” procedure, far from any “dramatic reversal,” is really a very poor remedy of too-little and too-late, since the animal owner ’s information should never have been submitted to USDA/APHIS in the first place, and since the states using data-mining to secure “false voluntary” premises IDs did not offer to discontinue the data-mining.
This “opt out” incident is characteristic of two traits common to Liberty Ark, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. First, they continually overstate the importance of their own accomplishments and fail to accord credit to the actual accomplishments of other groups and people. (Consistent with Lamb’s sponsorship of the group, they seem especially eager to omit mention of the accomplishments of such pro-environmental groups as NOFA/Mass.) Second, they invariably endorse and support weak compromises and half-measures such as accepting “voluntary” government-run NAIS or supposed “opt outs” for people who should never have been forced into NAIS in the first place. This behavior is affirmatively harmful to the legitimate movement against NAIS. It lulls into submission those opponents of NAIS who incorrectly may believe that part of the problem has been “solved” by a misleadingly-named “voluntary” program or by “opt outs.” Further, it has the potential to defeat the antiNAIS movement altogether. Consider what would happen if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener concentrated a large degree of power in their own hands by overstating their own “accomplishments” and never acknowledging the real accomplishments of others (particularly the real accomplishments of pro-environmental, sustainable farming groups). In that scenario, Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener might well place themselves in the position of appearing to have the power to agree to some defeatist “compromise.” In other words, what if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener act in ways that nullify the gains of those truly opposed to NAIS, by insinuating themselves into a position of influence with bureaucrats, legislators, and industrial farming interests such as Farm Bureau, and then obtaining less-than-desirable “concessions” or legislation to further their own agenda, despite the honest opposition of their “supporters?” Surely, we have not all labored tirelessly against NAIS just to have some unrepresentative, self-appointed group accept a result far short of what we really want – the complete eradication of any government NAIS program.
The Hopeful Ending: A Growing and Diverse NAIS Opposition Can Sustain the Movement’s Truth
Many readers will be disheartened to learn of the tactics employed by Liberty Ark, FARFA, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. But the revelation of these tactics will allow true NAIS opponents to combat the negative effects of these groups and their “leaders.” Fortunately, at just the time when more positive direction is needed by the antiNAIS movement, many more groups are embracing the true NAIS opposition message or are moving toward a more effective opposition. For example, R-CALF, previously only a mild and partial NAIS opponent, soon may be forced by a member referendum to take a stance of complete opposition. Many other livestock and farming groups on the local, state, or even national levels have taken up the antiNAIS cause in recent months. Sustainable and small-farming advocacy groups organized at the state and local levels are beginning to work actively against NAIS.
Those who have been most effective and successful in fighting any form of NAIS have done so by adhering to the true interests of their local supporters, and becoming very active in educating both the public and their government representatives about the dangers of any government-run animal identification system. This is truly a grassroots movement, and dedicated individuals and authentic local groups are responsible for the progress that has been made in the fight. There are many well-informed and passionate people diligently fighting against NAIS. The fight against NAIS offers the first legitimate opportunity in years, perhaps decades, to turn back the tide of corporate globalism and the earth-destroying excesses of industrial technology, and restore the ethical and moral values upon which local, human-scale, peaceful, generous communities can be built.
Don’t squander the opportunity. Join with your friends, family, and neighbors, reject greed and blind self-interest, despise the technocrats’ divorce from Nature, take back the Earth, restore the Creation as the cradle of life.
[END MARY LETTER]
posted by Neil W.
[This issue has been percolating for some time. I do not know all the ins and outs about it or the final word. I just got a copy in email from Mary of the letter and am digesting it. Mary has just emailed me confirming that this letter is hers. It appears to be quite complicated and a people issue which is not my personal strong suite - There is a reason I live off on a mountain in the middle of the woods. The key is to remember what you are fighting for and continue using the best resources you can find to help secure protection for our traditional rights to farm. -WJ]
Comment Neil W. — February 9, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Well, I recieved an answer the very next day about my email to ‘OPT-OUT’ of the NAIS. Here’s the gist of it.
“The proceedure to remove names (and associated information) from the Premises Registration System is still under development. We will inactivate your account immediately and remove your information as soon as that is possible to do. ”
Guess it pays to live in Missouri!
-Diana
Comment diana — February 9, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Mary, thanks for your letter, very good points made. Neil thanks for posting it. I agree that a growing and diverse NAIS opposition can sustain the movement’s truth. It’s kind of a parallel to what we need for “real food security” …a “growing and diverse” food base instead of modern day Robber Barons monopolizing food production and distribution with a little help from their friends in high places, ahem.
I’ve learned a lot from all of the people who leave comments here, my preferred site to carry the fight against NAIS. I agree that we don’t need to make concessions for a volunteer NAIS because that’s just a warmup for mandatory…
Our “leaders” in the fight against NAIS aren’t going to speak for me and I suspect many others if they back off and agree to a volunteer program, I’m my own leader if that’s the case, as we all are and should be. If someone’s looking to negotiate a “truce” or half victory on my behalf, forget it…Remember me?, I’m from New Hampshire, live free or die, etc. etc. If we ever get a volunteer program I won’t volunteer, if we ever get a mandatory program, again I won’t “volunteer”, send me to outlaw chicken jail if you must…
I’m not going to say much more about “leaders” because I’m a bit uninformed of their motives and their previous efforts…Anybody that actively opposes NAIS is on the right track in my opinion.
Anybody that settles for a volunteer program might be a “little bit pregnant” and setting themselves or “us” up for a future date with a mandatory program. Which we know is the stated goal of the USDA. They’ve backed off a bit now, but it’s just to put us to sleep, my mother warned me not to take candy from strangers, I’ll take her advice.
[Your mother gave you good advice, Bob. Keep up the good fight. -WJ]
Comment Bob Constantine — February 9, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
I was one of the four State Coordinators who quit during the Talent Emerson snafu. While this isn’t really a ‘people’ issue, it certainly has been percolating a long while. Guess the coffee is done.
Comment Doreen — February 10, 2007 @ 12:06 am
The day the article came out I personally called the man who was mentioned. Was his name Ben? Anyway, he told me that opt-out requests will be kicked back to the state ag dept. Between the two, State and USDA, they will decide on a case-by-case basis. He had no criteria for the case-by-case thing. Notice they kick it back to the state but the USDA is still the decision maker. They really don’t have a system in place. They are just making it up as they go along. No opt-out has been entered into the Federal Register, so it looks more like the Emperor’s New Clothes to me.
Some may be discouraged with Mary’s letter, but I look at it this way. We, by and large, are “reluctant” activists, been immersed in a rather steep learning curve and don’t know much about politics, not the down and dirty dealings, not first hand anyway. Along comes a group like Liberty Ark who says one thing but then does another. I used to be a state coordinator but jumped ship when I was told to toe LA’s unwritten, invisible line with regard to the Talent bill. I couldn’t because of the pesky things mentioned elsewhere. I will testify that I know what went on behind the scenes in Massachusetts. What Merry’s letter says is the truth. I, for one, do not want to be lead down the wrong road. And, as I’ve said over and over again, fighting NAIS is not about ego-tripping.
Sharon
Comment Hen — February 10, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Open Letter from the Liberty Ark Steering Committee:
We admire Mary Zanoni for her early whistle-blowing on NAIS.
Regrettably, she has decided to attack those who disagree with her on
strategy. Her recent article is filled with inaccuracies, twisted
facts, baseless personal attacks, and innuendos. It should never have
come to this because our disagreements do not change the fundamental
thing we have in common: We want to stop NAIS. Attacking each other
only weakens the anti-NAIS movement. This divisiveness needs to stop,
and we will not debate this subject further.
The real issue is how we stop a program that has the backing of Agri-
business, technology companies, and federal and state government
agencies. Our position statement states: “The Liberty Ark Coalition
opposes any form, federal or state, of a government-mandated National
Animal Identification System (NAIS). The Coalition believes that the
best solution is an entirely private, market-driven program, in which
government involvement is limited to protecting citizens from fraud
and abuse by corporate activity in the market place.” As the position
statement recognizes, *if* enough people insist on some form of NAIS,
then it must be privately funded (none of our tax dollars) and truly
voluntary, not the USDA’s definition of voluntary. FARFA’s position
statement states: “Congress and the State legislatures should halt
the implementation of the NAIS and investigate more effective and non-
intrusive means of addressing animal health. At a minimum, the NAIS
should be limited to a truly voluntary program, with no direct or
indirect penalties for failing to participate, full disclosure and
the right to withdraw from the program, and no government funding.”
Unfortunately, Ms. Zanoni would lead you to believe we define the
word “voluntary” the same way as the government, when that is not
true.
The purpose of Liberty Ark, from the beginning, has been to form a
nationwide, coordinated coalition that spans the full political and
social spectrum, to effectively fight NAIS. What we share as
individual human beings is far more important than what divides us.
The corporate-government conglomerate that threatens us isn’t worried
about labels like “environmentalist” or “property rights advocate.”
The proponents of NAIS are united in one goal – to force the program
on every person who owns animals. The opponents to NAIS must also be
willing to place the goal – stopping NAIS – above personal
disagreements and ego.
_Individual responses from the people named in Ms. Zanoni’s article_
We were torn whether to ignore Ms. Zanoni’s personal attacks, as they
deserve, or answer them. But we realize that many people don’t know
us personally, so the named individuals have done brief rebuttals.
People are free to direct questions to any of us, at
noah@libertyark.net, including the 2 members of the steering
committee – Meritt Lamb and Randy Givens – who Ms. Zanoni overlooked.
Karin Bergener: The fact that I work for SAIC has long been public
knowledge, and I’ve mentioned it in speeches. SAIC is a large company
(43,000 employees), with a number of business units. One particular
business development person took out a membership in NIAA under the
SAIC name, not her business unit’s. I work for a commercial business
unit, *not* the federal side of the company. I have not been paid
anything for my work with Liberty Ark, and my job with SAIC is what
has allowed me to spent every evening and weekend for the last year
writing and speaking against NAIS. As to the Farm Bureau link, read
my article (posted on the Liberty Ark website) about Farm Bureau’s
deceitful participation in the development of NAIS and its failure to
adequately inform its members of its true pro-NAIS agenda.
Judith McGeary: My husband and I own a small organic (not certified)
farm where we raise heritage breeds of chicken and turkeys, grass-fed
lamb, and make compost tea to improve the soil biology. I did
microchip my horses – 7 years ago, because I was told by a vet that
it was the best way to protect my animals against theft. Ms. Zanoni’s
accusation that I am in the fight because of funding is
reprehensible, particularly because she encouraged me to leave my
well-paid legal career to fight NAIS. I have spent a large chunk of
my life savings in the last year because I believe that NAIS
threatens sustainable agriculture, which I believe is the future for
humanity. I am a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the
Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, and Weston A. Price
Foundation. Ms. Zanoni accuses me of working with people who are
typically seen as being against environmental causes, and she’s
right. This fight is broader than the sustainable agriculture
community. It will affect every farmer, every rancher, every 4-H
child, every homesteader, every horse owner. I do not want to protect
only those who are involved in sustainable agriculture – I want
everyone to be free from the program. As for my position on NAIS, I
invite people to read FARFA’s position statement and the many
articles I have written at www.farmandranchfreedom.org.
Meritt Lamb: The truth is that I was part of the very first
conference call to form Liberty Ark. We introduced ourselves and
explained why we thought the threat of NAIS needed to be exposed.
Those present on the first conference call were: Ms. Zanoni, Judith
McGeary, Karin Bergener, Randy Givens, Henry Lamb, and myself. To
remind Ms. Zanoni what I had said at that meeting … “I am the
Editor of the /eco•logic Powerhouse/ magazine, and serve on the Board
of Directors of the Environmental Conservation Organization as
Secretary/Treasurer. My wife of 22 years, Karen, and I own 100 acres
in NW Tennessee which we share with three dogs, 25 chickens, and at
one time, a bull named `Willy.’ The idea of having government intrude
on our little part of the world through what is called NAIS, is the
reason for my efforts to expose the impact on private property
rights, small farmers, and anyone who enjoys the pleasure of taking
care of one’s own, as we do - without the government dictating what
we must do with our animals, or our premises.” As the Editor of
the /eco•logic Powerhouse/, I find it hard to understand why Ms.
Zanoni is not concerned with the issues I present in the magazine.
Either she has not read the magazine, or just does not understand the
consequences of the events taking place that continually erode the
principles of freedom that is the very foundation of our great
country. NAIS is but one of those issues I have presented in the
magazine, with the contributions of leaders in the field.
Randy Givens: I also was part of the first Liberty Ark conference
call with Ms. Zanoni and have continually served as a member of the
Liberty Ark Steering Committee since then. To be short, the negative
comments of Ms. Zanoni are not true. At a recent public anti-NAIS
meeting, Judith remarked that we come from different ends of the
political spectrum, and that is absolutely true. However, as I said
early on in the formation of Liberty Ark, “We are all in this boat
together. If NAIS wins, then we are all sunk.” That’s why we named it
the Liberty Ark Coalition – so people from all parts of society could
work together, in spite of our differences, to defeat any government
sponsored or funded NAIS. Ms. Zanoni and sustainable farmers do not
own the fight against NAIS. We encourage everyone to continue to work
with the us in fighting NAIS, our common enemy.
Henry Lamb: From the beginning, I have assisted the Liberty Ark
Coalition. Because of health issues and my responsibilities in the
management of two non-profit organizations, and writing a weekly
newspaper column, I chose not to participate formally in the steering
committee. So I have acted as an advisor to the Coalition. The
connection between my son, Meritt Lamb, the Environmental
Conservation Organization and Liberty ark has been posted on the
website from the beginning. The ten-year old story dredged up by Ms.
Zanoni was funded by the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and
Research (CLEAR), a project of the Environmental Working Group (EWG),
funded by the Tides Foundation. The American Farm Bureau Federation
has never contributed one cent to the operations of any organization
that I am, or have been, involved with. I challenged the authors of
the article to prove their allegations, and they have never produced
any evidence of their false accusations. I have consistently and
openly opposed “sustainable development” as defined in Agenda 21,
while promoting sustainable, responsible, environmental stewardship
since I became aware of the environment as an eighth-grade Future
Farmer, planting pine trees and raising show steers. The body of
published work I’ve produced in the last 20 years stands on its own.
The people who read my work will realize that I work to advance the
principles of freedom, and work with those who also believe in
freedom.
_So what have we done?_
Liberty Ark and FARFA have fought to protect animal owners against
NAIS across the country. Liberty Arks’ accomplishments – including
developing a professional-grade CD that exposes the lies behind NAIS,
distributing 50,000 brochures, and working to support grassroots
movements across the country – were done with donations totaling a
mere $4,761. Our work has been fueled by the efforts of dedicated
volunteers, both on and off the steering committee, such as free
website work by Meritt Lamb’s wife. FARFA has a list of its
accomplishments on its website at www.farmandranchfreedom.org, along
with our position statement, extensive articles, and a biography of
each of the board members.
Focusing on just a few examples mentioned in Ms. Zanoni’s letter:
* Massachusetts: Pat Stewart, a former board member of NOFA/Mass and
the Liberty Ark state coordinator, reached out to work with NOFA/Mass
on proposed legislation, including sharing the Liberty Ark model bill
back in December. NOFA/Mass then decided to work on its own bill. Pat
Stewart and the steering committee respectfully disagreed with
NOFA/Mass that its bill was the best option, because of our concerns
that it left open the possibility for a state-level program that
would include mandatory or coercive provisions. So we crafted a bill
that attempted to combine the positive aspects of both approaches.
The Liberty Ark bill includes the provisions of the NOFA/Mass bill,
and then goes further by barring the state from using existing
programs to implement NAIS through the “back door” or using coercive
measures in any similar program. Both bills will be posted on our
website as soon as they are available online from the Massachusetts
legislature.
* Virginia: The initial “No NAIS” bill was amended to bar only a
mandatory program, leaving the door open for a coercive voluntary
program. Liberty Ark raised this issue in its action alert. VICFA
chose to support the amended bill, and we respected and agreed with
that decision because we were told that the compromise bill was the
only one that had any chance of making it through. Unfortunately, it
did not. This does *not* mean that VICFA was secretly working against
the anti-NAIS movement. Both they and Liberty Ark dealt with
political realities.
* R-Calf: we’re pleased that Ms. Zanoni singled out R-Calf’s possible
new stance as a sign of hope. The resolution was championed at the R-
Calf convention by dedicated cattlemen from the South Dakota
Stockgrowers. Judith McGeary and Karin Bergener were directly
involved in developing the resolution and providing the arguments to
back it up.
As with these examples, the truth behind other issues raised in Ms.
Zanoni’s article – such as the Talent Bill and the opt-out provision –
are very different from what she portrays. We will provide detailed
explanations of these issues on our website soon.
Disagreements about the strategy to defeat NAIS are a healthy part of
the anti-NAIS movement. But divisive personal attacks merely weaken
us. Whatever our political or social differences, we share a strong,
common bond – stopping NAIS.
From the Liberty Ark Steering Committee:
Karin Bergener
Randy Givens
Meritt Lamb
Judith McGeary
Like it or not this is a political fight were in and politics makes for some strange bed fellows. Politics is the art of compromise but
that doesn’t mean you sacrifice your core principals and beliefs. We welcome everyone to enter the arena with their ideas backed up by reasoned debate on how to defeat NAIS.
Bill Mitchell
Comment Bill Mitchell — February 11, 2007 @ 8:05 am
11 February 2007
Dr. Zanoni,
I would like to start, first, by saying that I have a Quarter Horse breeding facility in Southeast Texas. It is what I do for a living. As such, the movement to stop NAIS is very important to me. I first learned about the program about a year ago from a fellow breeder in Oklahoma. I made it a priority to learn as much as I possibly could about this proposal and immediately began to get involved.
Lest I be accused of having an “agenda”, let me also make perfectly clear that I am not a member of either FARFA or Liberty Ark. I’m a politically active horse breeder who is passionate about his animals, his government and most importantly, his civil liberties. NAIS goes against these three most important aspects of my life.
I first became acquainted with Judith McGeary in September of 2006. I attended a FARFA town hall meeting to learn more about NAIS. I was very impressed with Ms. McGeary’s passionate opposition to this proposed invasion of privacy, as well as her understanding of the complexities of dealing with both legislative bodies, law making and the “average” farmer/rancher like myself. She put forth a very compelling presentation that explained the nuance of premises ID and the ultimate intrusion of requiring people to tag/identify all their livestock. Nowhere in her presentation, at this time, did she put forth anything but a complete NO NAIS presentation. That meant no NAIS in any form, voluntary or otherwise.
As I am also very involved in local politics, I wanted to make sure that constituents in my County were aware of this proposed program and provide them with the tools to make an informed decision (primarily where local, state and federal candidates stood on NAIS). As such, another NAIS town hall meeting was scheduled in November of 2006.
Prior to the town hall meeting, I was talking with Judith about the evolution of possible legislation. It was at this time that I first learned about a possibility for a “voluntary” (and non-coercive) program.
The core message of her presentation, in November, was identical to the presentation I had seen some 2 months earlier. The most dramatic change, however, came in the question and answer period. A Farm Bureau Member stood up and voiced his concern and asked Ms. McGeary, point blank, if she knew what the Farm Bureau’s position on NAIS might be. She clearly and unequivocally asserted that the Farm Bureau was supportive of USDA and NAIS. Another local cattle rancher then stood up to comment that “if Farm Bureau supports NAIS, perhaps we shouldn’t renew our memberships”. If Ms. McGeary were somehow in collusion with the Farm Bureau or any other organization that’s supportive of NAIS, she would have found some way to avoid adequately answering the question.
Although not perfect by any means, I’ve been involved in partisan politics long enough to know that compromise is always a part of the game. If you can’t get exactly what you want, you have to work to get the best possible legislation. A truly voluntary program is such a program. Ms. Zanoni, you seem more interested in engaging in innuendo, half truths and in casting doubts on someone that, I believe, is a friend and not a foe. You have exhibited in your piece that you have no interest, whatsoever, in any form of productive dialogue. You also come across as being completely incapable of flexibility or compromise. The timbre of your article sounds like so many “sour grapes” to this horseman.
I will not make these assumptions without providing a basis for coming to these conclusions.
Let’s examine the inflammatory/disparaging language you’ve employed. The following are directly taken from your diatribe:
1. Pro-Corporate Agenda
2. Co-Opt
3. Sad Concealed Interests
4. …de facto leaders
5. …federal government contractor
6. …DNA database
7. …gun-purchase background check database
8. …biometric identification
9. …fully mandatory NAIS
10. …relentless supporter of a mandatory NAIS
11. McGeary consistently has supported a “voluntary” NAIS
12. …these people may not “oppose” NAIS on some level
13. …authenticity of their motives
14. …globalist industrial agriculture
15. …technocratic industrial/corporate interests
16. …forcing farmers into NAIS without their knowledge or consent
17. …”voluntary” NAIS cannot be tolerated and is not consistent
18. McGeary…Worked Diligently to Weaken State Legislation
19. …a virulent anti-environment publication
20. …corporate interests of polluting industries
21. …defeat initiatives that would promote clean and livable rural areas
22. …growing misgivings about Lamb’s motives
23. …co-opt the anti-NAIS movement
24. …appendage of the pro-corporate, anti-environmental agenda
25. …Bergener and McGeary insisted
26. …for profit corporation
27. …changed in the future to obscure the relationship
28. Talent (sic)…had developed ties to corporate and industrial agriculture
29. Talent’s (sic) legislation would have been a frontal assault on the citizens’ right(s)
30. …outrageous assault on the autonomy of state freedom of information laws
31. …deliberately designed to offer false appeasement
32. Liberty Ark, Bergener, and McGeary deliberately supported the Talent (sic) bill even though they were well aware of the terrible consequences
33. …the first-ever federal statutory authority for NAIS
34. …insults to citizens’ rights
35. …insisted on supporting the Talent (sic) bill against all objections
36. …obsession with creating a misleading impression
37. Liberty Ark Lures
38. False Comfort
39. …data mining without their prior knowledge or consent
40. …too-little and too-late
41. …characteristic of two traits common to Liberty Ark, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener
42. …fail to accord credit
43. …invariably endorse and support weak compromises
44. …affirmatively harmful
45. …lulls into submission
46. …appearing to have the power
47. …defeatist “compromise”
48. …nullify the gains of those truly opposed to NAIS
49. …insinuating themselves
50. …position of influence with bureaucrats, legislators, and industrial farming interests
51. …less-than-desirable “concessions”
52. …legislation to further their own agenda
53. …unrepresentative
54. …self-appointed group
55. …disheartened to learn of the tactics employed by Liberty Ark, FARFA, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener
56. …revelation of these tactics
57. …true NAIS opponents
58. …negative effects of these groups and their “leaders”
59. …authentic local groups
60. …turn back the tide of corporate globalism
61. …earth-destroying excesses of industrial technology
62. …restore the ethical and moral values
63. …squander the opportunity
64. …reject greed and blind self-interest
65. …despise the technocrats’ divorce from Nature
66. …take back the Earth
67. …restore the Creation
Having read your diatribe, it is glaringly obvious that you suffer from having harvested “sour grapes”. You clearly say that Mr. Lamb sought you out and wanted YOU to “be the leader of this group”. YOU recommended both Ms. McGeary and Ms. Bergener. It appears that when things weren’t going YOUR way, YOU decided to disassociate YOURSELF from these individuals and their organization. That was YOUR choice. It is not, however, up to YOU to poison the minds of others with misinformation and flat out factual fallacies. I do not know Mr. Lamb or Ms. Bergener but I do know Judith McGeary. I know she is passionate about stopping NAIS and is equally passionate about her animals. By her association, I feel comfortable with the steering committee/s of Liberty Ark and FARFA (although I may not agree with other political viewpoints they may or may not have).
Without doing your homework, you allowed Mr. Lamb to reprint something you had written without checking to find out who he is, what his affiliations might (or might not) be, and what type of publication in which your piece was being placed. Someone that is that careless with their own writing and that blind to doing even basic research before forming an alliance isn’t worthy to lead a movement, if indeed, that is what you are attempting to do by your feeble effort to discredit anyone that doesn’t explicitly agree with your every whim. It seems obvious to me, that had you done your research up front, you could have avoided what you perceive to be such a grim and nefarious situation, however, I don’t believe that to be the case.
Dr. Zanoni, you have single handedly convinced me that Judith McGeary, Liberty Ark and FARFA have the working farmer/rancher’s best interest at heart. Your vitriol is obvious and noxious. You’ve managed to throw more than 67 stones without offering any resolution but blind opposition. For the sake of my horses, I hope that someone that you have aligned yourself with will help you to see that sometimes life requires compromise. I’m not suggesting acquiescence or capitulation…merely accepting the best possibility available.
Dr. Zanoni, do all of us with livestock a favor; work with those who oppose NAIS. Don’t try to tear them down because they have the audacity to disagree with you. Liberty Ark, FARFA and their steering committees are not the enemy.
Respectfully,
David Greer
Bredwell Farms
Comment David Greer — February 11, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
This is in reply to Bill Mitchell comment #17
To Comment #18: 1 thru 67? You must not have anything to do.
This is NOT a ‘political fight’. That mind set tends to keep people out the ‘arena’ and renders them ineffective.
When evil programs that would destroy the very foundation of society are being pushed down the throats of our legislators by global, corporate agribusiness and their supporting business lobbyists, the people are obligated to fight it. How can you compromise with a program like NAIS? And why would anybody even entertain the idea? I agree there is a fight here, but is it political?
One simply has to do a little homework, then, go tell the lawmakers what they have to do to preserve and protect the Constitution. That’s what this fight is really about. We don’t need lawyers to write legislation in ‘legalese’ for it to be a good bill, or for it to be effective.
I’m sick to death of ‘would-be political saviors’ pretending that they are the only ones who can and should be talking to legislators because it’s too complicated for the average ‘Joe Schmoe’. All one needs is to be armed with the facts and put the rubber to the road.
I found out that I could call my state rep at home. My state senator isn’t out of reach either. We have his cell phone number. I found out that I could go visit with ANY state rep, (and did), even if they are not in my district. (I’ve called dozens of them at home to talk about the NAIS)
You don’t have to start an organization or be a member of one to put on an NAIS informational meeting. You just need to have a speaker or two, invite all commissioners, senators and reps from the surrounding counties and advertising is very important.
Three of us went up to the state capital and had a meeting with 2 senators and 3 reps to hash out what kind of legislation they needed to introduce. (The result was Missouri HB747.)
Everybody has a voice that counts. That voice doesn’t have to be college educated and it certainly doesn’t need a law degree. I’m proof of that.
A lot of state legislators are trying to do the right thing but they need our input and support so that their voices carry weight when they are on the floor speaking to other reps and senators about a bill. Word gets around fast at the state capitals when constituents show either support OR disapproval of an issue.
I am not able to address the Liberty Ark issue as heartily as I would like. I will say that they were happy with the Talent/Emerson Bill and wanted my wife Doreen, who was Liberty Ark State Coordinator for Missouri at the time, to show enthusiastic support of the bill, which she would not. It was a lousy bill. In spite of that, Henry Lamb wrote an article in support of it. Karin Bergener told Doreen she needed to make a ‘linguistic leap’ and issue positive statements about it or she could not work with Liberty Ark anymore.
Regardless of where funding comes from or what biometric company somebody might happen to work for, I try to look for the fruit of the organization. I said, ‘fruit’, not ’smoke’.
Involved as I have been in the fight to stop the NAIS I have never heard of Liberty Ark playing a role in getting good, solid No NAIS legislation entered into any state capital house or senate.
Organizations are not the protectors of your freedom. Personal responsibility for your freedom cannot be the responsibility of anyone but you.
Comment David — February 11, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
In regards to the opt out: I am highly doubtful that anyone’s info in the system will ever LEAVE the system. We have a business and have what we consider to be a large mailing list. There are a few names on the list who we have determined to be “not interested” (i.e. deceased or had accounts sent into collections and still waiting). For these individuals we have them on inactive status since we have existing records (sales invoices) which we believe is necessary to keep them for counting inventory. They are still in our system and we have no intention of sending them a newsletter, but they are still there just the same. I have a strong hunch names in the NAIS database are going to be in the same boat and will be subject to come out of hiding the first time a “crisis” is deemed in that particular state. It’s a nice thought to opt out, unfortunately, I believe all who have requested have only gone into “inactive status”.
Comment prairie girl — February 11, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Sounds like we all agree the goal is stopping NAIS. The personal side of who does what, well, we’re people and we’re bound to disagree with the method sometimes.
I do agree with the comment from David #19. This is not just
a Political fight. ONE of the means to combat Nais, be it voluntary, mandatory or “voluntary / mandatory”, (where a volunteer cocoon program births a “MOTHRA” mandatory program)is political.
Let’s hope political means get it done, but let’s not dismiss the problem as “only political”. If that had happened in 1776 we’d be saluting the Union Jack, not the stars and stripes!
Why start off giving in to a volunteer program and why agree that’s a reasonable compromise?
A compromise is where two parties each give a little…We already “own” the right not to have NAIS. In a volunteer program we’d be giving something up and not gaining anything. Why compromise our rights?
Here’s an excerpt from the New Hampshire Constitution -
article 10) “right of revolution”
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolumnet of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered, all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may , and of right ought to reform the old, establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and opression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
So, I guess if I follow my state’s constitution (the highest law) I need to make every effort to solve the problem politically, but I’m “obligated” to use other methods if needed…wouldn’t want to violate the state constitution, would I?
So let’s use EVERY means available to expose what NAIS is and defeat it…but keep the pitch forks, torches and
hot tar handy just in case :)
Comment Bob Constantine — February 12, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Thank you Bob. Well said.
Comment David — February 12, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Right on Bob! May I add to that the Pa.Constitution Article#1 section#2…”All power is inherent in the people,and all free govts are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace,safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter,reform or abolish their govt in any manner as they may think proper.I bet a lot os states put something like this into their constitutions,and even if they didn’t folks still have that right,as it is a natural right,(ie) a right folks have just because they are human.) Notice,the language in both of these aforementioned documents did not say a majority had to agree or that they had to obtain consent from the govt or others,we the people have this God given right to throw off tyrany,as Jefferson said it is imprudent to throw off a govt long established for trivial or minor infractions, but I don’t think we are dealing with minor infractions anymore,we the people hold the cards,hopefully the powers that be will submit under the rule of law on so many issues that they are out of line on at this time,no I am not advocating violence or anything, I’m just bringing up the fact as Bob has that we don’t have to ever submit to tyrany,its our right to live free,its our duty to demand that liberty be respected,thanks!
Comment LEE — February 12, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
NH’s constitution is a wonderful document. Besides it’s “Right to Revolution” it has the toughest search and seizure articles in the country.
Definately a document worth knowing. Personal freedom tops the list.
Many years ago when I first took the police standards training classes we had a chapter on the Constitution. A defense attorney friend of mine taught the class. I remember very clearly…”You have by virtue of your police appointment a most awesome power. A power bigger than anything else. You have the right to legally deprive somebody of their freedom. Don’t use it lightly.”
I never made a cheap arrest. I always attempted to resolve things another way if at all possible. (Sometimes it wasn’t, acts of violence or possible harm)but the towns people loved me for it. Was always in trouble because my Chief was a stats man. He also never understood why he would arrest somebody and they would slap them with a lawsuit. I arrested somebody and they sent me flowers and pled guilty. Somebody threatened me physically and I would find myself flanked by the locals. He got into a fight and they would just step back and watch. He never got it, poor man.
I believe that article 10 has been tested in recent history. The Seabrook nuclear plant and the protesters. The protesters weren’t convicted because they invoked their right to revolution. Be case law worth looking up.
Comment Sue F — February 13, 2007 @ 3:42 am
NO NAIS! No Compromise!!!
Social Security was once voluntary and now is MANDATORY so will NAIS be if we don’t oppose it. Dr Zanoni is right!! NO COMPROMISE and Liberty Arc is messed up.
I think I will cancel my subscription to Ecologic. I was under the impression that the two organizations are totally different, but I guess they are not and H. Lamb has a hidden agenda and is not the person I thought he represented himself to be.
…and I will look for an alternate insurance co instead of FB!
Comment John Miesel — February 13, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
I have debated whether or not to enter the current controversy, and I have decided this is way too important to worry about upsetting anyone, so here I go.
I don’t care if someone is liberal or conservative, environmentalist or not - I just don’t want to be sold down the river on NAIS by anyone. I am glad this issue is out in the open, because I think there has been way too much secrecy about what is happening behind the scenes. Right now, today, I am concerned about Texas and HB 637. On January 22nd, under “Texas NAIS Legislation”, I pointed out several conceerns I have about HB 637, following Judith’s four-point explanation of what the bill does.
It has come to my attention, after speaking with several involved Texans over the last week or two, that there is a prevailing opinion among some of the “insiders” that it is okay to accept legislation that we would all consider bad, EVEN IF IT IS PASSED INTO LAW, and then go back and amend it. If this is acceptable, then I must be the only insane one out here. I have been told over and over that HB 637 is a very “weak” bill. I believe we have one shot at this, and after that the legislators will turn their backs and wipe their hands of us. If Texas legislators don’t have the will and stamina to do the right thing now, why would they come back later, especially after it is law, and stand up for us then???
On Able Farm and Ranch (right sidebar), is yet another state - Arizona - where legislation has been introduced to stop NAIS. I can’t believe that these smaller states can introduce and discuss legislation to stop NAIS, and in the great big state of Texas we cannot get one person to introduce something we can be proud of.
Judith, since you are spearheading efforts in Texas, would you please inform us who has been contacted in the Texas legislature about legislation, why Patrick Rose has cooled his heels over his bill to rescind HB 1361, and basically everything that is going on behind the scenes. I believe there has been too much secrecy, and I think it should end now.
I am guilty of leaving to others that which I should have been on top of, but I thought we were ALL in this fight to defeat NAIS. Compromise is what the politicians do, and look what a mess this country is in. We need to stand our ground on NAIS - that is, NO NAIS.
I am also still looking for someone to go to Austin with me to visit legislators that might have more conviction to stopping NAIS. The people I have spoken with in Texas - people I have never met - all seem to believe that a “voluntary” NAIS is acceptable. The deadline for new legislation is Marth 9th, so we must get to it. Suggestions or contacts would be appreciated. If I must go alone, so be it.
Mike Morris in Texas, if you are not afraid to contact someone as insane as myself, I would like for Walter to give you my e-mail and we can at least stay in contact.
Also, I am not on Texans Against NAIS, so if anyone is so inclined, please cross-post this there. Thanks for doing that.
VOLUNTARY/MANDATORY: We all know federal income tax is “voluntary” - right? Here is a little something I found on the IRS website, where they mention “voluntary compliance” six times. For instance, they cite that “Penalties enhance voluntary compliance.” Any questions about where a “voluntary” NAIS will take us? I guess the USDA will become the new IRS for farmers, rancher, and any “animal” owner.
link
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, voluntary is mandatory!
Comment Texas Goat Gal — February 14, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Oops! Was in a hurry as kids were hitting the ground this morning. Try this:
link
If that doesn’t work, I will give directions.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — February 14, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Texas Goat Gal, I think by “voluntary compliance,” they mean “paying with a cheerful attitude.” Gosh, if the government wants us to pay our taxes cheerfully, they need to start spending our tax dollars wisely! The IRS haggles with us over every dollar, then the politicians use almost all of it to enrich themselves and their cronies.
Yes, there should be penalties for any dishonest folks who try to cheat the government (we should not play dirty even when dealing with crooks, right, guys?). But the government must set a good example, by throwing out all the cheats and crooks in their own ranks! They want to create incentives for people to pay their taxes honestly? Then let them should stop taking so much of our money.
I, for one, would pay my taxes gladly, if I knew they were being used for the good of ALL folks in America. As it is, much of it is being used to feather the nest of some “important person.” *big sigh*
Well, I have ranted long enough. But if any of you IRS officials are reading this, please consider dropping the term “voluntary compliance” from your website. You’re not enhancing the government’s image (as if it wasn’t dark enough already).
On a different tack, I would go with you to Austin, if New England wasn’t so far away. Afraid I couldn’t get to Texas easily (we’re snowed in at the moment). Besides, I have my hands full here in Massachusetts. Hope you find someone to help you!
God Bless
Comment Goatman — February 14, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Just crossposted your plea for assistance on Texans Against NAIS. Best wishes!
Comment Goatman — February 14, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Thanks, Goatman. Goat lovers are the best!
Comment Texas Goat Gal — February 14, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Walter, thank you for notifying me that this question had been posted. Goat Gal, I don’t monitor what’s being posted to this site. If you have questions for me, you can email info@farmandranchfreedom.org or call 512-243-9404. The contact info is posted on our website, www.farmandranchfreedom.org.
I would suggest that you ask Representative Rose your question yourself. He is most likely to respond to someone who lives in his district.
I have done my best to keep people informed about what I am doing and what is happening through action alerts and articles, including posting the comments we’ve submitted to the agencies and legislature. You can read all of them on FARFA’s website (action alerts for more states are on the Liberty Ark site).
You can find out which legislators have signed on to which bills online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/. I am not going to post about every conversation I’ve had. I don’t have time. And if I were to post my version of conversations with legislators and their aides on the internet, I would lose my credibility with them.
I’ve been encouraging people to talk to their legislators all along. This can’t be — and hasn’t been — a one-person effort. Remember that there is a long road between getting a bill introduced and getting it passed.
Comment Judith — February 14, 2007 @ 6:46 pm