Posted on 02/07/2006 10:13:40 AM PST by Calpernia
man jailed for not rfid tagging pets
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/13309603.htm
I have that one on my forum:
http://www.breederville.com/auction/forumtopic.php?topic=2&boardid=1
I have reptiles (exotic ones). I heard in the reptile circles that some breeders test chipped a few of their non valued ones and they all stopped breeding.
Did you see the thread about the school in California that started tagging their students?
Implanted or badge style?
Badged. I will get the link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339911/posts
Parents Protest School Mandate That Students Wear Radio ID Tags
bttt
No WAY am I going to bow to these Statists if I have enough land to raise my own livestock and food! You do not NEED to "register" MY PROPERTY!
No WAY is someone who raises a chick for a 4H project, or F.F.A. going to "register" with the Gub'Mint!
It's EXACTLY this time of JBT behavior that will have B.I.T.S. REAL soon!
Monday, January 09, 2006 NAIS Marking the Beasts Hmm... What do we have hear? Fox tracks all in a line? A one legged goat? A hermit crab scuttling? What could it be? After you've thought about it for a bit leave comments with your ideas... Tune in next time for answers! :) On a totally different topic, do you know about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that the government is working on implementing? NAIS is a system that the USDA is proposing to identify all livestock in the United States and also identify all premises (locations with any livestock). This includes all birds, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, llamas and many other animals. The stated goal is to be able to have 48 hour trace back of all meats from the consumer to the farm where the animal originated incase of illness or contamination. That sounds all well and good except that: 1) They are including livestock sold directly from small farms to the end consumer where there is already 100% track back in much less than 48 hours. If you buy locally from the source you know exactly where your food came from. 2) They are snaring homesteaders by including even livestock you might keep for your own consumption. The government is implementing huge "non-compliance" fines if you don't report your backyard flock of chickens, your summer feeder pig, your lawn mowing sheep, etc. This will take away your right to raise your own source of eggs, meat and wool. 3) They are including animals that are not in the food supply such as pets like horses, llamas, etc that are not intended for consumption. Under the plan every single animal must be identified. Any births, deaths and movements on or off the farm will be required to be logged and reported to the government. If you take your sheep to a show you will have to track their location and submit paperwork to the government. If you go for a trail ride with your horse you will have to report that to the government. If your pig has piglets you'll have to report that and then if some of those piglets die or you eat one you'll have to report that. Pretty soon after that the government is going to want to charge a consumption tax every time you eat one of your own animals. After all, unless you buy all your food then you're not paying sales tax, you're not helping the Gross Domestic Product grow, you're not paying your share. You think I'm joking? You are required by law to pay taxes on any barters you do. It is only a tiny step from that law and NAIS to a tax on every chicken, every egg, every pig, every sheep, etc. Then they'll go for your tomatoes and carrots. (No, I am definitely not paranoid enough.) All this identification, tattooing, labeling, tagging, micro-chipping, RFID equipment and paper work is going to cost money. Who do you think is going to pay? You! That's who. NAIS will increase the cost of food both to those who raise it and for consumers at the farmer's market and at the supermarket. This is going to require more government bureaucracy to manage which will eventually lead to more fees and taxes collected by the government to manage a system tracking your life and making it ever more expensive. Under the plan the government requires you to track the animal movements as well as your premise location (your home) with GPS and address coordinates. All animal locations and movements must be logged and reported under penalty of confiscation and fines. Furthermore the USDA will not guarantee to keep the information confidential because of the Freedom of Information Act. This means that radical animal rights groups (like E-ll-F and Pee.Ee.Tee.Ah a.k.a. Pet-ah) will be able to find out exactly where you live and precisely what you have for animals. These terrorist groups have already attacked farms and destroyed property killing people and animals. Now they'll have even more data to use figuring out who to target. Lovely. Will this give us any better security? No. Almost all of the cases of food born illness and recalls are caused by contamination at the slaughter house, packing plant and further along the chain of supply. Perhaps this sort of thing is a good idea on the large scale producers, the factory farms, the big slaughter houses. It is not needed in our back yards and homesteads. It is not necessary for small farms selling direct to the consumer or other end users. It is certainly beyond reason for non-food pets. Virtually all of the remaining cases of food born illness like Mad Cow and the like are the product of bad practices like feeding animals back to their own species and over crowding. These are problems that are not related to the small farms, the homesteaders and the backyard flocks. NAIS won't solve these problems. Furthermore, Mad Cow, to take the government's favorite scarecrow, is something that takes years to decades to infect. A 48 hour trace back is going to do diddley-squat. At the very least NAIS should allow exemptions for pets, homesteaders, backyard flocks and small farms that sell direct to the end user. These groups already have better than 48 hour track back and are not the threat. The threat is big agri-businesses, "factory farms" that lock millions of animals in cages and generate ideal conditions for disease to run wild through animals with suppressed immune systems and antibiotics in their feed. These are the corporations that grind up cows and feed them back to the cows. They are the ones that routinely feed antibiotics to their livestock producing new strains of drug resistant super-germs. They are the ones generating enormous mountains of waste and pollution the taints the air and the water. They are the problem. If they are so gung-ho for NAIS then let them implement it for themselves. NAIS will lead to more centralization of our food supply and bigger government. The big corporations that already control too much of our food supply will control even more of it. More control over the system of production by fewer corporations and individuals is a threat to our nation. This is the last thing we need. What we need is decentralized local production to ensure the safety of our food supply. If all our food comes from a few sources then it is in great danger for everyone. If our food comes from many small localized farms then we have greater national food security. NAIS is exactly the wrong answer. It is not too late to fight this nonsense. There are several groups* working to fight it. Join with them (Oklahomans Against NAIS, FreeTennesee, StopAnimalID, Americans Against NAIS). Sign the petition against NAIS. Write the USDA. Write your local newspapers. Write your state representatives. Write your congressional critters in the House and Senate. Let them know how you feel about this. If you don't speak up now you may lose one more right to privacy as big government gets bigger and reaches its hand deeper into your life and your pocket book. NAIS is a big government, big corporation answer to a question they don't even understand.
bttt
That is Walter. He owns NoNais.org.
Post 64 in response to our freep mail.
In reference to our freep mail, look at post 64.
We will also need to chip all politicians so we can locate them instantly when they are found in violation of their oath -- before they can flee the country.
The rules of law and the 'rule of law' should be written by the people who pay for it. Not the ones write it and profit from it.
As it is, the 'rule of law' is becoming indistinguishable from the rules and rule of tyrants.
So why can't we? Let's go file criminal charges against our politicians. NOT CIVIL, CRIMINAL.
Haven't they broke the law? They sold us out.
We weren't theirs to sell out.
There are there, paid for by us.
If a sitting president can murder someone on the corner of Broadway and Main at high noon and get away with it (seriously theorized by a senator and overheard during a recent impeachment hearing), what chance do the people have in getting anyone in gummint convicted of a lesser charge?
They discipline each other when the drums disturb their sleep -- but only to the extent that will silence the restless natives for another fortnight.
But now that you bring it up, what is the process/procedure for filing charges serious enough for a grand jury investigation? What evidence is required? Suriving witnesses? Would it be possible to find a non-government-connected law firm or attorney? And what about the judge? In all reality, who is he/she really working for? The rule of law or the rule of tyrants?
>>>But now that you bring it up, what is the process/procedure for filing charges serious enough for a grand jury investigation? What evidence is required?
I have a file on that. I'm still looking things up.
I bet they would wake up REAL fast if the citizens all started proceeding with that.
Keep me pinged on that. Thanks, Cal.
It's obvious that Monsanto is well connected in Washington. How does this insider power get used?
Full link to so much more:
http://www.verdant.net/corp.htm
Read about every progressive's favorite chemical company: Monsanto's 1998 Annual Report
(See page 10 thru 13)
Be sure to read "PART III, ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT." Here are some of the preceeding jobs of the Monsanto directors:
Steven L. Engelberg, 54, Senior Vice President, Partner, Keck, Mahin & Cate, 1986; Partner-in-Charge,-Monsanto Company eck, Mahin & Cate Washington, D.C. office, 1986; Chief of Staff of Office of the United States Trade Representative (on leave from Keck, Mahin & Cate until May 1993), 1993; Vice President, Worldwide Government Affairs--Monsanto Company, 1994; and present position, 1996.
R. William Ide III, 56, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary--Monsanto Company; Partner, Kutak Rock, 1989; President, American Bar Association, 1993-1994; Partner, Long, Aldridge & Norman, 1993; and present position, 1996.
Note that William D.Ruckelshaus is a Director of Monsanto.
Mr. Ruckelshaus is Chairman of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. He was twice the EPA Administrator and served as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. In addition, he held the positions of Majority Leader of the Indiana House of Representatives, Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Senior Vice President of Weyerhaeuser Company. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. He is also Chairman of the Board, Browning-Ferris Industries.
From the following: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=852
1.Monsanto and WTO
Just the man...
When the US takes its trade case on GMOs to the WTO, one person who will have a role is the Director General's deputy, Rufus Yerxa, a former US ambassador to Gatt, the WTO's predecessor, and international counsel to Monsanto. At the time of his appointment the Financial Times described him as "just the man [the WTO Director General] will need should the US ever bleat to the WTO about EU restrictions on genetically modified food."
http://ngin.tripod.com/210802c.htm
Rufus Yerxa Biography
Rufus Yerxa is Monsanto's Chief Counsel and Head of Government Public
Affairs for Europe. Previously he served as US Ambassador to the GATT in Geneva and as Chief Deputy USTR during the 1st Clinton Administration, when he played a key role in the Uruguay Round Negotiations. He was also a Partner in the Brussels Office of Akin Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld,
specialising in EC and International Trade Matters.
http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/cm.conferences/ih.and.tr_2001.html#to232
Rufus Yerxa, the most senior legal official at the WTO, to whom the legal affairs division reports according to the Secretariat Org Chart, worked as European then International Counsel for Monsanto immediately before being appointed to his WTO post, or so indicates his curriculum vitae on the WTO website.
A significant number of Monsanto products are listed in the annex to the US letter requesting consultations with the EC.
Mr. Yerxa is the ultimate boss of the legal affairs division at the WTO, which in a number of ways may influence the proceedings if a panel goes ahead on GMOs--including involvement in the selection of panelists, legal
advice to the panelists, advice in the identification and selection of outside scientific "experts" in the case.
According to Rules of Conduct for the understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes, including Secretariat officials assisting in respect of DS proceedings are covered by the following Governing Principle:
"1. Each person covered by these Rules (as defined in paragraph 1 of Section IV below and hereinafter called "covered person") shall be independent and impartial, shall avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interest and shall
respect the confidentiality of proceedings of bodies pursuant to the dispute settlement mechanism, so that through the observance of such standards of
conduct the integrity and impartiality of that mechanism are preserved.
These Rules shall in no way modify the rights and obligations of Members under the DSU nor the rules and procedures therein."
How do we get our officials to consider how this Governing Principle might apply to Mr. Yerxa in respect of the GM0s case? Major issue is whether Mr. Yerxa is a covered person--the exact wording of the Rules of Conduct could
lead to a negative inference--he isn't a secretariat member singled out to assist in the particular dispute. On the other hand, as the "top boss" he has unparalleled potential scope to control and direct the work of such
secretariat members.
If the Governing Principle does cover him, does the requirement to "avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interest" require that a kind of Chinese wall be created whereby Mr. Yerxa doesn't engage in communications with
members of the legal affairs division staff in relation to the case, or is a more stringent approach needed?
There is also an issue of disclosure: the disclosure requirements in the rules of conduct are to say the least not very detailed. Would they extend, assuming Mr. Yerxa is a "covered person", to stating whether he currently
holds any Monsanto shares or share options?
Even if Mr. Yerxa is not a "covered person", there is of course the policy question of whether the integrity of a dispute requires nevertheless that the appearance of a potential conflict of interest be addressed.
This whole export trade stuff stinks. Our own farms are going to end up on welfare and this is all a horse and pony show for the big companies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1579642/posts
Who benefits from GM crops?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/04/usda_inc.html
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986
This Reagan-era law says that corporations can provide funding to USDA for research projects. It gives those corporations exclusive licenses on patented inventions that result from a given project. It exempts their work with USDA researchers from the Freedom of Information Act.
This law has allowed USDA to enter into all sorts of creative business ventures and partnerships.
The USDA is looking more and more like a Fortune 500 company, and less a cash-strapped public institution, every day.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=852 more US pushed Monsanto products.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.