Everything we do is said to be a “contract”, from simply buying a cup of coffee to purchasing access to the federal government. It is necessary to view every possible action we may undertake in our daily lives as being some form of contract, no matter how idiotic the example, in order for us to accept that our government itself is one big corporate contracting monstrosity that has less to do with governing the country constitutionally, than it does as a fiduciary profiteer. Key to that profiteering is privatization of what are to be tasks and services performed by the government. Simply put, creating and/or empowering a contracting corporation to perform tasks and services the government is prohibited from engaging in outside of the the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
Privatization has been recognized as the threat it poses to the Republican form of government we are supposed to be living under. So, it was softened, made to sound like something other than what it actually is. To facilitate that softening, the ceding of unlawful powers to profiteering corporations is now referred to as “interested stakeholders.” The newly described “stakeholders” have agreed to exchange valuable benefits on specified terms and conditions with an eye on profits.
If there is one word among all the weasel word swaps floated on the public that is sounding the death knell of the Republic, it surely has to be “stakeholders”. Stakeholders….sounds benign doesn’t it? “Stakeholder’s” is simply the code word for privatization….the selling off of government offices and programs for no other reason than to profit. Of course, once privatization is completed, the profits will be privatized and the losses will become nationalized. This means that taxpayers will eat any losses and the privatized sector will retain any profits. What good is privatization if you cant extort the public?
And once the privatization is complete, congress will begin empowering those privatized service agencies to begin “rule-making”. Meaning law making that circumvents the Constitution.
When politicians and bureaucrats use the term stakeholder, it is nothing more than an avoidance to admitting publicly that they are pandering to some special interest, to those who keep them awash in supposed campaign donations. This can also include lavish vacations to exotic places disguised as business trips and other special perks and presents. It is also a term used to avoid admitting publicly that they are willingly selling their office and their vote to special interests.
If the federal government or even state government is operating with such deficiency that services it supposedly provides to the public would be better managed by some private entity…..why do we need the government at all? Why wouldn’t those in government get their respective acts together and begin streamlining and making efficient these supposed derelict operations? And why would any sane person conclude that the only way to repair the damage done by those mismanaging the government, would be to hand those sectors over to private corporations that are notorious for their own corruption?
What kind of government do we really have?
Let me ask you this: IF corporations operate only under international law and the law of contracts, how is it they are able to contract with the federal “government” if that so-called government is not itself, a corporation?
And: IF you believe the false narrative that the Republic still stands, that the federal government is not actually a corporation, how is it that congress continues to cede power and authority it does not possess (constitutionally) to these corporations such as the USDA? Wouldn’t the Non-Delegation Doctrine prohibit that?
|The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. . . . And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern’d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorized to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.
— John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
Especially since Title 7 Agriculture of the US Code is NON-POSITIVE code and title. Meaning they can site the fact that they created this code but it cannot be codified into public law because it is not in the enumerated powers of the Constitutional government, and is an area that is reserved to the states or the people respectively. Title 7 Agriculture.Not revised, codified and enacted into positive law.
The gold standard for corporate contracting disguised as “government” was S 510
Way back around 2010 when “Dirty Harry” Reid (D) NV, shoved the fake food safety bill, S.510, through the Senate with his one unanimous vote, without objection, we got our first big sampling of the word “stakeholder”. https://ppjg.me/2010/12/20/bribery-and-graft-abound-as-reid-attaches-s-510-to-clunkers/
We fought the passage of the so-called “Food Modernization Act” S. 510 to no avail. 99 Democrats and Republicans voluntarily vacated the Senate chamber so “Dirty Harry” could gut an old recycling bill and insert S.510 as an amendment, and casting his one lone vote, put into action one of the greatest assaults ever committed upon American agriculture and food production. Safety was never the issue, simply the soft cover used to try and sell this forced exporting of American agricultural goods into the global market; especially beneficial if you were a bio-piracy corporation such as Monsanto. After all, there were a great many “stakeholders” who stood to benefit from the theft of property and produce carefully hidden in S.510.
Under the careful manipulation of “Dirty Harry” Reid, agricultural land owners and livestock owners were reduced to “stakeholder” status. Applied to the individual who might not understand what was actually taking place, they were no longer referred to as the “owners of” said property or livestock. They were now referred to as “managers, operators” …you know… they took care of what they thought was their property but no longer actually owned it. They were still responsible for keeping that property up, paying the taxes, complying with the ever increasing USDA regulations…but it could be sold out from under them without any notice to them.
As part of the run up to S. 510, the USDA came out it with its premises ID, and National Animal Identification system. NAIS was quickly seen for what it was; the attempt to claim livestock as owned by the federal government, creating so-called “national herds”. In order to get the your identification number you had to apply for a premises ID number. This application was of course, an application to contract with the USDA, acting as agent for the Federal Corporation we call government. It was also a hidden conveyance of title, not only to livestock but to actual land, which could now be sold “without reserve”. In other words….no notice to the person who thought they still owned the property.
Premises as opposed to Property
Why would they not use the term “property ID”? Its simple. Property is covered specifically in the US Constitution. You have rights and protections for your property. Premises, on the other hand, originates in international law and the law of contracts. These are constructed of rules and general applications applied to the conducting of corporate business and contracts and avoid such pesky things such as that Constitution and your rights.
In the end:
Law of Contracts
The Non-Delegation Doctrine
Title 7 Agriculture.
Not revised, codified and enacted into positive law.
And here’s how “Dirty Harry” pulled off the hostile takeover of agriculture By Fred Kelly Grant | December 21, 2010
“Then, on the floor of the Senate in the late afternoon, early evening of Sunday, December 19, Senator Reid called the Recycling bill for a vote and there was no objection from the two other Senators who were on the floor. So by unanimous consent HR 2751 was passed. Then Senator Reid moved for reconsideration with the vote to be tabled. This was granted by the same unanimous consent because there was no other Senator on the floor. Then Senator Reid offered without objection amendment number 4890 which substituted S. 510 the Food Safety Bill for the Recycling Bill. Without objection, then the amendment was passed and the Food Safety Bill had been substituted for the Recycling Bill. Reid moved that the bill be read for the third time and asked for the question. Without objection, the bill passed, and the Food Safety Bill was on the way back to the House.”