wcn logo-mainBy Pat Kopecki

Source: Wilson County News

July 7, 2009

Agriculture leaders, as well as farmers and ranchers, are watching the outcome of the many congressional bills that are being discussed on Capitol Hill. They question whether farmers and ranchers will survive if additional permits and taxation are implemented. Two of the issues currently being discussed are the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that is included in House Resolution (HR) 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, and the probable taxation of cattle by means of changes in the Clean Air Act.

Those who have followed the NAIS controversy may have read editorials written by Henry Lamb, chairman of Sovereignty International Inc.

“The NAIS is an important part of controlling the rural population,” Lamb said.

Lamb, in a June e-mail interview, explained how NAIS opponents have linked the identification program to Agenda 21.

Lamb said, “NAIS is not a direct result of a specific recommendation set forth in Agenda 21. It is consistent, however, with the policy goals and recommendations of Agenda 21, in that the concept emerged from committees of the World Trade Organization, and was quickly incorporated into the ‘sustainable development’ concept which requires government planning and control.”

“NAIS will be devastating to small farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, and all livestock animal owners,” Lamb said. “The regulatory burden is economically unbearable, but this is only a symptom of the basic problem: NAIS ignores the Constitutional guarantees of privacy and security from an intrusive government (Fourth Amendment).”

Lamb has produced several videos on the NAIS issue and sustainable development, which can be found on Sovereignty’s Web site. In one, Lamb addresses how the government may enter private property, citing data from the American Planning Association publication titled, “Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines.”

“The model legislation contained in this book [“Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines”] provides many ways for government officials to enter private property and impose fines, and in some cases, actually ‘take’ private property without just compensation,” Lamb said. “One of the great concerns about NAIS is that once private property is registered in the program, no one knows what rights the federal government may have to the property. Since there is no law yet, nor any published regulations, no one can know what rights the USDA may claim. It is reasonable to conclude that they would claim the right to enter the property to ensure that animal counts and other information has been reported accurately,” Lamb said.

Lamb foresees that NAIS will aid in the implementation of the cattle gas tax being discussed under the proposed changes in the Clean Air Act because of the April 17 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding regarding greenhouse gases.

“NAIS, if implemented, will give government absolute control over the production of all livestock products, not only by permits and punishment, but by direct taxation as well. With every livestock premises and every livestock animal tagged and reported to a government database, it would be a simple matter to levy a tax on every animal — such as the EPA’s recently proposed flatulence tax — and enforce collection of the tax by direct confiscation, if necessary,” Lamb said.

In another video regarding NAIS, Lamb mentions Kansas State University, which conducted the cost benefit analysis of the NAIS program. He identifies this university as the same university that received a grant for the establishment of an animal identification center. Lamb believes this “constitutes a conflict of interest.”

The public who closely watched the NAIS hearing sessions across the nation, including one in Austin, may have noticed how the government tried to use the consensus method.

In the video, “Sustainable America … A New Consensus,” Lamb explains that consensus is not an agreement, but the absence of an expressed opposition.

Lamb said that the USDA “set out to ‘listen’ to individuals in the morning, and hold break-out sessions in the afternoon conducted by trained facilitators to achieve ‘consensus’ around seven specific questions.

“We [the Sovereignty group] were able to inform and educate local grass-roots leaders in every city as to how to avoid the ‘consensus’ process and take control over the meetings. These folks were extremely successful and completely overwhelmed the USDA,” Lamb said.

Lamb warns the public in a March 14 press release titled, “Lawmakers trash the Constitution,” that the government will make NAIS mandatory through HR 875 or a similar bill.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “NAIS – A Way to Control Rural Population”

  1. They can also control us through the food. Genetic modification can come in all shapes and sizes, including the introduction of traits that induce the desired reaction in human subjects. If we are not able to grow our own, the food we eat will most certainly be killing us, but before that, drugging us into complacency. A rapid increase in disease and pestilence are sure to follow.

    We are victims of the worst type of violence there is, and that is, poisoning of all the things we need to survive and be healthy. If you want to live, you need to eat and drink or you will die. But if you eat and drink, you will die from the poisons. This is no choice at all. And they are coming at us from all angles. Shortly, the market will be flooded with genetically modified wheat. This is our biggest grain for personal consumption. When the GM contamination reaches close to 100% people will start dropping like flies. Gee, maybe that is why they have that Doomsday Seed Vault in the Antarctic – to make sure that they have a good source of food after we are dealt with and the earth is theirs.

  2. Bob says:

    Beyond controlling the rural population they want to control the rural terrain. They’ll get rid of the rural population, those “who cling to their guns and religion” if necessary because the rural population controls the roads, rails, water, and some food that supply the cities. Destroying a source of really good food is just collateral damage. They can run their factory farms and import food.

    All the talk about food safety and global warming is a means to the end of control, which in the final analysis, as history shows us, is military control. A monopoly on violence.

  3. Sherry says:

    At some point we’ll have to lock and load…me thinks sooner
    than we thought.

  4. laurel says:

    amazing how incompetent they can be, ( Like border security and Flu, and drugs and 9/11… but…some guy in texas can see and bomb pakistan/afghan etc. RFID tags( some are passive, some have an emitter) wandering round would be trackable from the air I guess, possibly why they also want to chips us.
    going bush with cleanskins would be impossible. you have 20 chickens chipped at? $5 a pop for sale, and 5 you planned to keep for onfarm use. unchipped, and suddenly you would be in default of taxes (federal? offence? than all the other stupid addendums they will Add in, as they think of ways to make life even more hell than it already is for rural folks!

  5. Korn is king says:

    Uncle Sam finding and counting animals,thats rich. He cant even find his ass with both hands. Feeding cattle is already a bad deal with the price paid being so low. This is all about land-grabbing.