February 14, 2017
Government, Marti Oakley, S.510
agriculture, contract law, CORPORATIONS, Government, international law, Marti Oakley, non-delegation doctrine, non-positive Code, PPJ Gazette, privatization, rule-making, Stakeholders, USDA
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.
December 24, 2010
Food Safety, GMO
Agenda 21, CORPORATIONS, depopulation, GMO, lobbyists, Monsanto, regulations, seed contamination, Stakeholders, USDA
The USDA co-owns the terminator seed patent with Monsanto. Who do you think USDA is protecting? You…..or bio-pirates?
December 6, 2009
Agenda 21, CORPORATIONS, envorinmental organizations, federal laws, IMF, land funds, land plats, NGO's, smart growth, Stakeholders, sustainable development, The nature conservancy, UN, watershed systems, World Bank
By Nancy Levant
“All treaties, Memorandums of Understanding, and alliances with the U.N. trump the Constitutional Laws of the United States.”
Why the “New World” is so difficult to understand is not as complex as one might guess. While we naturally focus upon local issues and concerns such as community development, forest access, sportsmen’s rights, etc., one does need to understand the “whys” of local political decisions, and the decisions of local commissions and councils. There is rhyme and reason to our loss of rights, land, privacy, and public opinion.
Consider the following:
Every American citizen, no matter where you live, MUST buy your county’s Plat Book. Plat Books are maps that identify the owners of each and every parcel of land in your counties. You cannot know what is going on behind the scenes unless you buy your county Plat Book. Begin there. More
November 2, 2009
National Animal Indentification System
AgInfoLink, cental database, CORPORATIONS, federal funding, Food and water watch, livestock, NAIS, Oracle, premises ID, property owners, RFID, Stakeholders, Wisconsin, WLIC
Read full article here
Case Study: Wisconsin
One of the best places to follow the money behind NAIS is Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) and its partner group, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP)81 have managed to secure close to $7 million in federal funding and more than a million dollars in non-federal funding over the last eight years.82,83 Bolstered by a state law requiring every farm premises to be registered in a central database, these groups are serving as administrators of what amounts to a state-level pilot project for NAIS.
The WLIC, a consortium of private industry stakeholders and government agencies, has used these federal tax dollars to fund groups that could benefit financially from NAIS. By the middle of 2005, WLIC reportedly was funding more than a dozen research projects valued at close to $400,000, with money going to the Wisconsin Pork Association,84 which currently sits on the WLIC board of directors, and Smithfield, a current member of WLIC.85
WLIC was founded in 2002 as “a proactive, livestock industry- driven effort”86 with a mission “to create a secure, nationally compatible livestock identification system.”87 The members and affiliates of the consortium read like a laundry list of the corporate and private interests that stand to gain from a mandatory NAIS. The big animal-ID tech companies, like AgInfoLink, Digital Angel, Global Animal Management, Y-Tex and Allflex USA, are all represented as members.88
In coalition with the Wisconsin Department of Trade and Consumer Protection, the WLIC has developed its own USDA-compliant Animal Tracking Database — one of six that the USDA considers fully functional and capable of providing traceability.89
The push for animal tracking in Wisconsin, however, has not gone smoothly. Some farmers continue to resist registering their premises or participating in animal identification — either because of privacy or property rights concerns, or, in the case of Amish farmers, on religious grounds.90 In 2007, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture began sending letters to dairy farmers on unregistered premises indicating their milk production licenses could be revoked if they failed to register their farms.91 This threat, which would have essentially forced non-compliant dairy farmers to go out of business, was eventually softened,92 but to critics of NAIS, it demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics that government agencies are willing to use to promote the program.
September 30, 2009
Government, HEALTH, MOU
bribes, chipping newborns, congress, cooperative agreements, CORPORATIONS, doctors, federal laws, healthcare reform, insurance industry, investments, malpractice, malpractice insurance, MOU # 3, nullification, PASS Act, pharmaceuticals, public trust, REAL ID, RIID, Stakeholders
PPJG Original article
September 29, 2009
Author: Marti Oakley (c) 2009 All RIGHTS RESERVED
Consider this a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all members of the Senate, all members of the House, and to President Obama. I am sure you are fully aware of the intent and implications of MOUs, as each of you, in one way or another, uses them to establish the outlining of agreements between yourselves, collectively or individually, concerning the agreements you have made with individuals acting as state’s representatives or agencies; generally to avoid Constitutional prohibitions on your intended actions and in avoidance of the Constitution. I am using it in quite another fashion as you will see in the following text.
For you, MOUs are the terms and agreements of what, are in fact the first step in contractual agreements. MOUs are most often accompanied by cooperative agreements and funding (bribes) to implement what generally turns out to be egregious assaults to civil rights and liberties to the benefit of the federal government, linked so inextricably to corporate interests and global agreements.
Consider what follows a Memorandum of Understanding between me, Marti J. Oakley, and all of you, collectively cited in the above paragraph. More