Posted on 02/08/2006 7:07:51 PM PST by Calpernia
It is signed on. Go look at my post one. That Healthy People act. They merged with the CDC and share a database.
So, if President Bush was filing an opinion, it wasn't necessarily to eminent domain our property?
Hold my hand. Where was my answer?
"So, if President Bush was filing an opinion, it wasn't necessarily to eminent domain our property?"
i already explained it (i thought).
the administration CONSIDERED filing a petition on behalf of eminent domain (this means they WANTED the gov't to be able to take your property to sell to other developers in order to increase tax revenues)
Here's the one I was thinking of: The New Freedom in Mental Health Commission
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1209754/posts
It looks like Healthy People 2010 predated Bush. The "New Freedom in Mental Health Commission" is more recent.
This is part of the Healthy people 2010 program
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1561077/posts
Animal Tagging and SCHOOL LUNCHES???
(snip)
One of the Amendments Codey signed into law is the Model School Nutrition Program.
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/PolicyQA.pdf
I became curious because it seems to be an initiative of the USDA. I always thought it was the FDA that dealt with foods and labeling.
Anyway, the School Nutrition Policy is an effort of another initiative called Healthy People 2010. The Model School Nutrition Program is the first implementations of the Healthy People 2010 Project.
The USDA, State and Local levels are presenting this as a FEDERAL program.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/hpdata2010/abouthp.htm
The CDC says it is a Non Governmental Organization.
http://www.healthypeople.gov
The Goal of the Healthy People 2010 Project is to have all our health and food safety needs tracked in a National Database by 2010. The school children's lunches are the first steps.
(snip)
I've since learned it is NOT a 'national' database.
It is an corporate digital library built by Monsanto Company
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573646/posts ,
Monsanto is a Corporate Partner of World Business
Council
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572207/posts
They were dicussing on the radio here in Northern Colorado the other day. Of course it was one of those crazy, conspiracy theory, patriot radio stations (WHNC). The MSM never does any reporting on this type of thing. Most people wouldn't believe it anyway.
ping
>>>the administration CONSIDERED filing a petition on behalf of eminent domain (this means they WANTED the gov't to be able to take your property to sell to other developers in order to increase tax revenues)
I'm just making clear I understood.
But, why would the administration need to do that if the SOCUS already ruled eminent domain as constitutional?
Yes it did predate President Bush. It was started in Clinton's administration. See my post 1.
"I am scared. Why are these programs in our governmental departments???"
This is something that spans both of our political parties. They couldn't do it without help from our own government. They also want to control the water out here in the west.
No, they don't believe it. Trust me, I have tried to explain the school lunch part to the other mom's in school. A UN agent will be coming into our schools come September to audit our files and ensure there is no sugars. Zero tolerance for all.
Yeah...this thread needs the *PING!* Posse of Americans!
Gang, get a load of the meat on this article...let it sink in REAL good and deep!
Then clean your guns to calm down...(well, it works for me, anyway...)
Remember this each time an OBL-er, or one of the annoying 'Bots appears on the threads...remember my pic of the Cattle Car...
Then remember...it's us or them that will be riding in it...I know where I want to be!
Not just the water. They are microchipping trees.
Now try to explain that too someone!
RFID tagging our plants and trees.
http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.pfc/presentations/rfid_seedlings/pages/slideA_gif.htm
Ron Paul lets you know how they are going to enforce NAIS+all the other "social services"
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst100305.htm
October 2005
Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty - a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.
I have been concerned for some time about the establishment of a UN Peacebuilding Commission, an idea I first found so troubling when the International Relations Committee marked-up the UN Reform Act containing this provision earlier this year.
According to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council members, major donor states, major troop contributing countries, United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key coordinating body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core of a future UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere.
The misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United States? What if the US is determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?
Most disturbing, however, is the UN adoption of the “Responsibility to Protect,” a report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (www.iciss.ca/report-en). Whenever the UN names a commission to study intervention and state sovereignty you can bet that it is to promote the former and undermine the latter. This “Responsibility to Protect” report adopted by the UN commits member states to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign states if the state in question does not protect its population from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity,” or does not protect its population from the “incitement” to such crimes. Who determines the criteria for this policy of global pre-emption? The UN, of course.
While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly conceivable that at some future date a weakened US may face a financially and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within US borders after determining that the US has not lived up to its “responsibility to protect.” This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a “reform” process that is actually strengthening the United Nations. What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this turns out to be our own?
Is Donna Shalala really Jimmy Hoffa in a dress? In any case, the US does not need the UN's Babelism..
"Alcohol's for drinkin' and water's for fightin' over"
Cowboy Proverb
One World Ping
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.