Friday, November 30, 2007
ADVERSE POSSESSION IN BOULDER, CO
This story is infuriating. A couple in Boulder, Colorado had owned and paid taxes on a piece of land for 25 years. When they began to fence off the property with plans to build on it, their neighbors made a claim on the land using 'adverse possession'. The neighbors, a former judge and a lawyer, were award the land that had been owned by someone else for 25 years! This is a true story. Go to the left hand side of the blog to link to this story under ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Contemporary Indigenous Peoples
I’m confident that the alleged historical victims of racism, intolerance and conquest carry the banner of ‘indigenous peoples’ for entertainment purposes. I’m referring to those individuals who flooded the streets of America in a show of solidarity for those illegal trespassers ‘living in the shadows’. To take their claims of indigenous peoples seriously all one has to do is prove assimilation never occurred. Watching the news video of the thousands who took to the streets, I was more than convinced that these born-again indigenous peoples had successfully assimilated into American culture.
They bore all the signs of American culture and political dissent protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects American Flag burners, Columbus Day protesters in Denver who spill fake blood on the streets of the parade route, and of course any group who feels their First Amendment rights includes taking their cause to the streets of America. It is time we retire the worn out rhetoric of indigenous claims and suffering and replace this trend to re-invent entire populations. I offer the term ‘contemporary indigenous’ peoples.
Contemporary indigenous peoples are those populations who have survived the judgments of history and who remain in the regions their ancestors fought for, homesteaded, developed, paid for, paid taxes on, and created law and civilization for.
Throughout history populations have replaced populations, and yet remnants of the previous people remain. We call part of this process history. In the American West we have a number of peoples living together; sometimes in harmony and sometimes in conflict. Yet the fact remains, people stay, persevere, and hope to provide a future for their children and grandchildren. People have acquired property as their stake in the present and for the future. Land ownership by individuals and families generates prosperity and hope for that future. Contemporary indigenous peoples in the American West could be defined as ranchers, loggers, miners, laborers, and the ‘town’s people’.
I’m not offering a chronological marker for when these populations must have established their presence on the land. That marker went out the window the day the streets of America were flooded with newly aware indigenous peoples protesting for blanket amnesty for foreign illegal trespassers living in the United States.
Yet as much as scholars, judges, and social activists list the enumerated rights of foreign illegal trespassers, allegedly due them from some exchange of grievance earned historically for contemporary justice; the contemporary indigenous populations are either blamed for history or sought out for exclusion or just plain old extermination. As we’ve seen, the same federal, state and local governments that provide sanctuary cities and vague interpretations of national security and sovereignty have no problem taking solid American citizens property or violating their Constitutional Rights.
I combine the world litigious and genocide to create a new word: litigicide. My word; blame me for it. I accuse the federal government of litigicide against distinct groups of peoples throughout the United States. These groups of people live mostly in rural areas of the United States where they control, own, or exploit the resources of large areas of land. It’s been made clear the federal government wants these land owners and communities that control the land to disappear. To be gone! I’m curious if the desired goal of ‘rural cleansing’, a term I credit Ron Arnold for creating, is to allow the absorption of other peoples from other parts of the world. Are biospheres, wilderness areas, and no habitation zones being set aside for global urban and rural renewal projects, crafted by some student of Sir Julian Huxley? Are we seeing private property rights under attack for the purpose of realizing some pioneer investor’s goal of global dominance? Who benefits and who looses in this battle to deny contemporary indigenous peoples whose legacy is tied to the land?
I call on all Americans to champion the cause of American Freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution. I urge you to think of American populations as contemporary indigenous peoples who have earned their right to own and use their land freely and legally. Assimilation has occurred for past populations who have immigrated to the United States legally. American culture is a carnivorous thing. American culture is also stubborn and rooted in the land. This trend of federal manipulation of law and jurisdiction and the bureaucrats who practice deception will fall before contemporary indigenous peoples give up their land and Constitutional Rights. It’s in our blood and it’s been our history. Now take the term contemporary indigenous peoples and replace with the word Americans. Now the faces of many races and traditions become clear under the banner of Americans. Those are your people. Embrace them and stand along side them in their battle to save this country from those who would parse it out to the rest of the world.
They bore all the signs of American culture and political dissent protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects American Flag burners, Columbus Day protesters in Denver who spill fake blood on the streets of the parade route, and of course any group who feels their First Amendment rights includes taking their cause to the streets of America. It is time we retire the worn out rhetoric of indigenous claims and suffering and replace this trend to re-invent entire populations. I offer the term ‘contemporary indigenous’ peoples.
Contemporary indigenous peoples are those populations who have survived the judgments of history and who remain in the regions their ancestors fought for, homesteaded, developed, paid for, paid taxes on, and created law and civilization for.
Throughout history populations have replaced populations, and yet remnants of the previous people remain. We call part of this process history. In the American West we have a number of peoples living together; sometimes in harmony and sometimes in conflict. Yet the fact remains, people stay, persevere, and hope to provide a future for their children and grandchildren. People have acquired property as their stake in the present and for the future. Land ownership by individuals and families generates prosperity and hope for that future. Contemporary indigenous peoples in the American West could be defined as ranchers, loggers, miners, laborers, and the ‘town’s people’.
I’m not offering a chronological marker for when these populations must have established their presence on the land. That marker went out the window the day the streets of America were flooded with newly aware indigenous peoples protesting for blanket amnesty for foreign illegal trespassers living in the United States.
Yet as much as scholars, judges, and social activists list the enumerated rights of foreign illegal trespassers, allegedly due them from some exchange of grievance earned historically for contemporary justice; the contemporary indigenous populations are either blamed for history or sought out for exclusion or just plain old extermination. As we’ve seen, the same federal, state and local governments that provide sanctuary cities and vague interpretations of national security and sovereignty have no problem taking solid American citizens property or violating their Constitutional Rights.
I combine the world litigious and genocide to create a new word: litigicide. My word; blame me for it. I accuse the federal government of litigicide against distinct groups of peoples throughout the United States. These groups of people live mostly in rural areas of the United States where they control, own, or exploit the resources of large areas of land. It’s been made clear the federal government wants these land owners and communities that control the land to disappear. To be gone! I’m curious if the desired goal of ‘rural cleansing’, a term I credit Ron Arnold for creating, is to allow the absorption of other peoples from other parts of the world. Are biospheres, wilderness areas, and no habitation zones being set aside for global urban and rural renewal projects, crafted by some student of Sir Julian Huxley? Are we seeing private property rights under attack for the purpose of realizing some pioneer investor’s goal of global dominance? Who benefits and who looses in this battle to deny contemporary indigenous peoples whose legacy is tied to the land?
I call on all Americans to champion the cause of American Freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution. I urge you to think of American populations as contemporary indigenous peoples who have earned their right to own and use their land freely and legally. Assimilation has occurred for past populations who have immigrated to the United States legally. American culture is a carnivorous thing. American culture is also stubborn and rooted in the land. This trend of federal manipulation of law and jurisdiction and the bureaucrats who practice deception will fall before contemporary indigenous peoples give up their land and Constitutional Rights. It’s in our blood and it’s been our history. Now take the term contemporary indigenous peoples and replace with the word Americans. Now the faces of many races and traditions become clear under the banner of Americans. Those are your people. Embrace them and stand along side them in their battle to save this country from those who would parse it out to the rest of the world.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
HOW THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FORCED OUT JULIE MACDONALD
Former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Julie MacDonald resigned her position at FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service), after allegations and complaints against her resulted in a biased and ‘scathing’ investigation, published in an official Dept. of Interior, FWS document. The investigation was initiated after the FWS received an anonymous tip alleging departmental abuses by MacDonald. One of the major complaints against MacDonald was her challenging of findings by FWS field technicians. MacDonald would actually go into the field, find the FWS who had submitted finds based on field studies and hold the technician accountable for their findings. This unprecedented action on behalf of a high-ranking FWS person of authority offended the egos of field technicians who were unaccustomed to having their reports challenged on any level. Along with allegations of abuse of her authority were accusations she went outside the department to seek third party opinions on FWS findings that would impact public policy. In the official document denouncing MacDonald there is an admission by the department that there was no evidence of MacDonald releasing any ‘non-public’ information to the pubic or non-departmental entities. MacDonald was probably one of the few, if not the only high ranking official of a federal bureaucracy that demanded accuracy and truthfulness in policy that could affect the use of public lands. For this realistic and courageous policy of accountability, MacDonald was forced out her position at the Fish and Wildlife and Parks. In the official report published by the FWS, there are ‘Agents Notes’, that contradict the reports attacks on MacDonald, all initiated by an ‘anonymous tip’. The words ‘no evidence’, regarding accusations against MacDonald are in the ‘Agents Notes’.What follows the resignation of Julie MacDonald? The Center for Biological Diversity has released a press statement which includes its intent to sue the federal government on the grounds of an ‘Environmentalists Challenge Political Interference with 55 Endangered Species in 28 States, Seek to Restore 8.7 Million Acres of Protected Habitat across the Country. In the links listed on the left side of the blog, under Julie MacDonald: Chain of evidence, the reader can follow the inner-workings of how a government agency seeks to destroy the credibility of one individual who demanded credibility and accountability of the people reporting to her.The following are taken from the offical FWS reportinvestingatve findings on Julie MacDonald.REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONJulie MacDonald,Deputy Assistant Secretary,Fish, Wildlife and ParksP. 2The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation based on an anonymous complaint alleging that Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS), Fish, Wildlife and Parks, had been involved in unethical and illegal activities. Specifically, the complainant alleged that MacDonald had bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to change documents and alter biological reporting regarding the Endangered Species program, As our investigation progressed, we also developed information that MacDonald had disclosed nonpublic information to private sector sources.Page 18Agent's Note: According to Deputy Director Jones, the Interim Guidance for Critical Habitat Designation has never been publicly.released or published for comment. Jones said it remains an FWS internal document and probably will remain so indefinitely. During his interview, Jones speculated that MacDonald may have been sharing internal FWS ED documents with outside sources; however, he had no evidence to substantiate his contention.The other former Assistant Secretary also said he never gave MacDonald permission to release nonpublic information. He admitted that the issue of MacDonald disclosing nonpublic information was a rumor within Fish, Wildlife and Parks; however, he said the subject was not officially brought to his attention in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary.P. 17When we interviewed Julie MacDonald, she said she is responsible for reviewing, commenting, and at some times editing critical habitat designation reports and five-year endangered species reviews.MacDonald said she views her involvement in the Endangered Species Program as part of her duties, and she challenges the science produced by FWS field personnel and makes them accountable for the citations and rules they refer to in field reports. She admitted that she is not always right, as in the caseof the vernal pools, but added, "The figures were a mistake and very embarrassing, but they didn't make a difference in the outcome of the review."http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/esa/pdfs/DOI-IG-Report_JM.pdfTESTIMONY OFJULIE MACDONALDDEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEESEPTEMBER 10, 2004FONTANA, CALIFORNIAHowever, we believe that resource management does not need to come at the expense of the needs of local communities, and the Administration is committed to achieving a balance between conservation and growth using all the available tools. At the Department, this commitment means implementing a cooperative approach toward the recovery of endangered and threatened species through the development of partnerships with states, tribes, landowners, and other stakeholders. To that end, I would like to discuss how the Administration is working to make implementation of the ESA more efficient and effective.Designation of Critical HabitatWhile the Department has made great strides in improving the administration of the ESA, one area of implementation that continues to be both a challenge and a source of controversy is the designation of critical habitat. As we have previously detailed in testimony before this Committee, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) has been embroiled in a relentless cycle of litigation over its implementation of the listing and critical habitat provisions of the Act. The Service now faces a Section 4 program facing serious difficulties due not to agency inertia or neglect, but to a lack of scientific or management discretion to focus available resources on the listing actions that provide the greatest benefit to those species in greatest need of conservation. The Service has characterized the designation of critical habitat as required by the Act as the most costly and least effective class of regulatory actions undertaken by the Service. It is often of little additional value or counterproductive and can result in negative public sentiment to the species and the Act itself. This negative public sentiment is fueled by inaccuracies in the initial area designated when we must act with inadequate information to meet strict statutory deadlines. For example, under the Act, the Service is required to designate critical habitat concurrent with a final listing determination, using the best scientific data available. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, the information supporting such designations have later been found to be incomplete, sometimes resulting in a cycle of litigation, described in further detail below. In closing, I would like to reiterate our commitment to working with Congress to find a solution to the problems associated with critical habitat designation and other related issues. At the same time, the Department will continue to strengthen our partnerships and expand the use of cooperative conservation tools. It is our goal to use cooperative conservation and the tools at our disposal to implement programs that will eliminate the need for listing by conserving species before they become threatened.Links to the Chain of Evidence in the Julie MacDonlad resignation can be found on the left side of the blog page. I urge all readers to read these links. Julie MacDonald's story is why we have uncontroled and unchallenged junk science policy and a policy of federal land grabs and designation of wilderness areas, endangered speices and a continuing threat to private property owners in the United States.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
HAZARD MITIGATION/PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Permisson to publish this article on New Mexico Property Rights Forum was obtained from Freedom Advocates, formerly Freedom 21 Santa Cruz.
Topic: Private Property Security
February 13, 2007Chapter Seven of Agenda 21 calls for the establishment of a “culture of safety.” All of Agenda 21, Chapter 7 is the expansion of UN Resolution 44/236 and the foundational material for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA's) "Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning" programme that fails to provide safety and destroys liberty.
The Global Safety Cult and the Abolition of Private Property
by William B. Roberts
Hazard Mitigation Planning-Building a Sustainable AmericaAs children didn’t we learn that ours is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Wasn’t this catechism served up with a slice of Martha Washington’s apple pie, a breast of Mayflower Compact wild turkey on a platter full of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, smothered under a generous helping of his Age of Reason? But in the sissified, materialist “Mommy State” of 21st Century America haven’t we altogether been programmed to believe that insurance policies can be had to indemnify against all of our losses whether from hang nail or heart attack, auto crash or airline disaster, bank failure, hurricane, tornado, heat wave, winter storm, drought, or wildfire?
What remains of our former hallmark “rugged individualism?” Where is that free land today? Are there yet any brave souls in this, our national home?Chapter Seven of Agenda 21 calls for the establishment of a “culture of safety?” A global safety cult, that guarantees neither safety nor permits liberty, has raised from the ashes of the Cold War era Civil Defense programme. This cult has many names, of which Sustainable Development is but one. Outwardly, its exoteric intent is to keep our earthly home safe from the destructive forces of man. Esoterically, it pursues man’s ancient quest: the mastery of nature. That through the mastery of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God—man will himself be as god and master of not only Earth, but in a larger sense—master of the Universe.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as President on March 4, 1933, the depression had reached its lowest point. The people had no assurance of their future course, and a paralyzing fear gripped the nation. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt struck a note of calm confidence: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes efforts to convert retreat into advance.” The President said he would ask Congress for “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
A review of the Emergency Power Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive [Branch] Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, United States Senate, November 19, 1973, reveals that since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.
In what some call “the permanent revolution” and others have written “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” the brotherhood of man remains in a constant state of emergency. In this way, the globalist cabal facilitates its end run around national sovereignty, borders, constitutions and governments. Using its “broad executive power to wage war against the emergency,” often a state-sponsored event, even Terrorism, the international community advances it’s programme de jour, in the Hegelian Dialectic fashion—problem, reaction, and solution—the crisis theory.
On December 22, 1989, The United Nations General Assembly, during it’s 85th Plenary Meeting adopted resolution 44/236, and following on the direction of it’s December 11, 1987, resolution 42/169, the United Nations proclaimed the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction beginning on January 1, 1990 and terminating on December 31, 1999, which all remember as Y2K; a much heralded and feared, yet toothless, non-event. October 11, 2006, was the International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction.
The Annex to Resolution 44/236 had as its first objective and goal, “to reduce through concerted international action, especially in developing countries, the loss of life, property damage and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, windstorms, tsunamis, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, grasshopper and locust infestations, drought and desertification and other calamities of natural origins.”
A/Res/44/236, states at 2(a) To improve the capacity of each country to mitigate the effects of natural disasters expeditiously and effectively, . . .the establishment of early warning systems and disaster resistant structures when and where needed;
And, in A/Res/44/236, 2(e) To develop measures for the assessment, prediction, prevention and mitigation of natural disasters through programmes of technical assistance and technology transfer, demonstration projects, education and training, tailored to specific disasters and locations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these programmes;
From the entirety of the above-cited resolutions has been crafted the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning programme which, I believe, in all aspects, has been adopted by the State of Florida, Polk County, and the City of Lakeland, and likely, your hometown, your county, and your state, too!
How does a United Nations Resolution make the transition from global initiative to local law? First, through agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations conferences, in this case, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) June 3-14, 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—agreed to by President George Herbert Walker Bush; and second, through voluntary adoptions made by national, state and local governments.
In the Foreword of the UN publication Earth Summit Agenda 21, the United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, 1992, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General, wrote, “Humanity today is in the midst of a profound civilizational change.” Mr. Strong contends that we are in a “second industrial revolution—this eco-revolution.” Further, he states that the levers of economic power and change are held by “Industrialists, economists, financiers, engineers, [and] scientists.” Mr. Strong looks “to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to be the focal point for the massive effort,”
This revolution planned to effect a profound civilizational change away from production and consumption to a more secure, sustainable and equitable future is but another phase of the permanent revolution. Agenda 21 is the book that defines this ideology. Let’s look at Chapter 7:
Chapter 7 Promoting sustainable human settlement development
F) PROMOTING HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN DISASTER-PRONE AREAS
__________________
BASIS FOR ACTION
7.55 Natural disasters cause loss of life, disruption of economic activities and urban productivity, particularly for highly susceptible low-income groups, and environmental damage, such as loss of fertile agricultural land and contamination of water resources, and can lead to major resettlement of populations. Over the past two decades, they are estimated to have caused some 3 million deaths and affected 800 million people. Global economic losses have been estimated by the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator to be in the range of $30 billion per year. [150,000 disaster related deaths/year? Compared to abortion, medical malpractice, auto accident, or AIDS related deaths, this number loses its intended impact. Compared to the hundreds of billions budgeted for annual implementation of Agenda 21, and much of this from grants and concessions made by the International Community, natural disasters are almost a non-issue.]
___________
OBJECTIVE
7.58 The objective is to enable all countries, in particular those that are disaster-prone, to mitigate the negative impact of natural and man-made disasters on human settlements, national economies and the environment.
__________
ACTIVITIES
7.59 Three distinct areas of activity are foreseen under this programme area, namely, the development of a “culture of safety”, pre-disaster planning and post-disaster reconstruction.
A) DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF SAFETY
7.60 To promote a “culture of safety” in all countries, especially those that are disaster-prone, the following activities should be carried out:
(a) Completing national and local studies on the nature and occurrence of natural disasters, their impact on people and economic activities, the effects of inadequate construction and land use in hazard-prone areas, and the social and economic advantages of adequate pre-disaster planning;
(b) Implementing nationwide and local awareness campaigns through all available media, translating the above knowledge into information easily comprehensible to the general public and to the populations directly exposed to hazards; [Propaganda!]
B) DEVELOPING PRE-DISASTER PLANNING
7.61 Pre-disaster planning should form an integral part of human settlement planning in all countries. The following should be included:
(a) Undertaking complete multi-hazard research into risk and vulnerability of human settlement infrastructure, including water and sewerage, communication and transportation networks, as one type of risk reduction may increase vulnerability to another [e.g., an earthquake-resistant house made of wood will be more vulnerable to wind storm events];(c) Redirecting inappropriate new development and human settlements to areas not prone to hazards; [relocation out of harms way](e) Developing tools (legal, economic, etc.) to encourage disaster-sensitive development, including means of ensuring that limitations on development options are not punitive to owners, or incorporate alternative means of compensation; [floodplain buyout](f) Further developing and disseminating information on disaster-resistant building materials and construction technologies for buildings and public works in general; [International Codes](g) Developing training programmes for contractors and builders on disaster-resistant construction methods. Some programmes should be directed particularly to small enterprises, which build the great majority of housing and other small buildings in the developing countries as well as to the rural populations, which build their own houses;(h) Developing training programmes for emergency site managers, non-governmental organizations and community groups which cover all aspects of disaster mitigation, including urban search and rescue, emergency communications, early warning techniques, and pre-disaster planning;(j) Preparing action plans for the reconstruction of settlements, especially the reconstruction of community lifelines.
(C) INITIATING POST-DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION PLANNING
7.62 The international community, as a major partner in post-reconstruction and rehabilitation, should ensure that the countries involved derive the greatest benefits from the funds allocated by undertaking the following activities:
(a) Carrying out research on past experiences on the social and economic aspects of post-disaster reconstruction and adopting effective strategies and guidelines for post-disaster reconstruction, with particular emphasis on development-focused strategies in the allocation of scarce reconstruction resources, and on the opportunities that post-disaster reconstruction provides to introduce sustainable settlement patterns;
(c) Supporting efforts of national Governments to initiate contingency planning, with participation of affected communities, for post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Now let’s jump from point to point:
7.28 The objective is to provide for the land requirements of human settlement development through environmentally sound physical planning and land use so as to ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.
7.29 All countries should consider, as appropriate, undertaking a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a land information system in which land resources will be classified according to their most appropriate uses and environmentally fragile or disaster-prone areas will be identified for special protection measures.
7.30 (a) Establish, as appropriate, national legislation to guide the implementation of public policies for environmentally sound urban development, land utilization, housing and for the improved management of urban expansion.
(d) Encourage partnerships among the public, private and community sectors in managing land resources for human settlements development;
(e) Establish appropriate forms of land tenure that provides security of tenure for all land-users,
7.62 Scientists and engineers specializing in this field in both developed and developing countries should collaborate with urban and regional planners in order to provide the basic means to mitigate losses owing to disasters as well as environmentally inappropriate development.
7.66 Training programmes should be extended to government officials, planners, community, and non-governmental organizations to cover all aspects of disaster mitigation, such as early warning techniques, pre-disaster planning and construction, post-disaster construction and rehabilitation.
7.69 (d) Formulate appropriate land-use policies and introduce planning regulations specially aimed at the protection of eco-sensitive zones against physical disruption by construction and construction related activities;
All of Agenda 21, Chapter 7 is the expansion of UN Resolution 44/236 and the foundational material for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning programme. Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development. Hazard mitigation planning is an implementation tool for the transformation of our several states into a communal, collective, new form of land tenure that fulfills the first plank of the Communist Manifesto: The Abolition of Private Property.
How the United States is Implementing Agenda 21:
In Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC 5165, authority to create natural hazard mitigation plans exists.
In the past, federal legislation has provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process and was put into motion on October 10, 2000, when the President signed the Act (Public Law 106-390). The new legislation emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. The Act establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
Under the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has produced several volumes of text that facilitates, and simplifies the process of promoting and implementing Sustainable Development through Hazard Mitigation Planning.
Each state has its Emergency Management Agency that receives its directives from FEMA. Most, if not all, states have established regional councils (soviets—regionalism) that exist as an extra-constitutional, quasi-public, quasi-governmental layer of governance. Above county government and seemingly below state government, these regional councils are the pipelines through which the international community, and the federal government exercise their will over local governments. Programmes of action and grants-in-aid flow through these regional non-profits. They may be likened to drug pushers or pimps in the global “casino”, the “city of crime.” We the people, and the governments instituted among men, have become hooked on OPM that is, “Other People’s Money.”
We have forsaken our founder’s advice, “A people willing to sacrifice their Liberty for security deserve neither security nor Liberty.” Socialism demands that it be so.
Even a schoolboy knows that man, even a group of sincerely dedicated wealthy men, is powerless against the mighty energy of creation. “[T]o reduce through concerted international action, especially in developing countries, the loss of life, property damage and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, windstorms, tsunamis, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, grasshopper and locust infestations, drought and desertification and other calamities of natural origin”, is at best a humanitarian and altruistic pipe dream. This is the stuff of the snake oil salesman, the shrill bark of the carney, the studied deception of change agents and propagandists.
The Department of Homeland Security, like Civil Defense before it, has as its primary objective: the continuation of government. Ensuring the continuity of government, and the preservation and protection of records and critical facilities, therefore, is at the apex of the mitigation plan. Immediately below the preservation of government is the preservation of business and banking interests.
Stripped of its bluster, obfuscatory demographics and pseudo-science, the hazard mitigation plan may be reduced to one element: Floodplain Ordinance. People have been either causing floods for irrigation and other purposes, or rebuilding after floods have occurred, from the beginning of recorded time. FEMA understands and can respond to flooding.
FEMA is prepared to use the property owner’s fear of loss due to flooding, as the vehicle to relocate development out of the 100-year floodplains, which defined is any land area that has a one percent or greater chance on any day to be inundated, and other hazardous or sensitive environments. The concept is known as “floodplain buyout”, but could also be labeled “Fear Motivation.”
FEMA publications state, “citizens are ultimately responsible for their own safety and for protecting their assets from damage by preparing for potential disasters that could occur within their community.”
FEMA says that, “a sustainable community is a disaster-resistant community.” This is where
Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, flood plain buyouts, relocation of human settlement development, and the International Code Council come to the fore. Before Agenda 21, we knew much of this as Urban Renewal, but whatsoever cannot be bought out, demolished, relocated or retrofitted will soon have to be built to resist whatever the Almighty can cast upon it.
How Local Governments Implement Agenda 21:
Former FEMA director James Lee Witt has partnered with the International Code Council as CEO and serves as Chairman of the International Code Foundation. What are these International Codes and how will their implementation affect each and every American?
The International Code Council, established in 1994, is based in the United States and is a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of national model construction codes. The ICC is ahead of the curve as we move further into the Free Trade Area of the Americas. With more than 250 well-qualified super social scientists at 16 offices throughout the United States and Latin America, the International Code Council and their International Building Codes, may just be another rapidly expanding globalist monopoly.
The International Codes published by the International Code Council (ICC), include:
International Building Code®
ICC Electrical Code®—Administrative Provisions
International Energy Conservation Code®
International Existing Building Code®
International Fire Code®
International Fuel Gas Code®
International Mechanical Code®
ICC Performance Code®
International Plumbing Code®
International Private Sewage Disposal Code®
International Residential Code®
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code®, and
International Zoning Code®
These comprehensive ICC codes are created following the model code development process and are performance and prescriptive code requirements. The codes are subject to and capable of
revision. A new edition is promulgated every three years. Model codes encourage international consistency in application.
The 1998 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, begun in 1996, supercedes earlier property maintenance codes; for brevity, we will consider only the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), which governs the maintenance of existing buildings.
Ostensibly, the International Property Maintenance Code seeks to protect public health, safety and welfare without unnecessarily increasing construction costs, restricting the use of new materials, products or methods of construction, and without giving preferential treatment to particular types or classes of materials, products, or methods of construction.
Neither the ICC, nor any of those participating in the development of their codes accept any liability (accountability) resulting from compliance or non-compliance because “ICC does not have the power or authority to police or enforce compliance” with the contents of the code. “Only the governmental body that enacts the code into law has such authority.”
As with all ICC code products, the International Property Maintenance Code is available by adoption by jurisdictions internationally in accordance with proceedings establishing the jurisdictions laws. Sample adoption ordinances written with fill-in-the-blank simplicity are included in the code booklet.
The adoption Ordinance reveals the broad range of the code which embraces existing structures and premises; regulates and governs the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings and structures; provides standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions that are essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use; for the condemnation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy and use; for the demolition of such existing structures; and provides for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; together with, the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of such 2006 International Property Maintenance Code.
The ordinance is in full force and effect from and after the date of its final passage and adoption. States, counties, municipalities and other forms of governance may adopt any or all of the ICC products in like manner, and many have already done so.
We will now examine several individual sections within the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code:
SECTION 101 GENERALIn Section 101.2 Scope, the code shall “apply to all residential and nonresidential structures and all existing premises and constitute minimum requirements and standards for premises, structures, equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, operators and occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and premises, and for administration, enforcement and penalties.”
Section 101.3 Intent, states that “existing structures and premises that do not comply with these provisions shall be altered or repaired to provide a minimum level of health and safety as required within.”
SECTION 102 APPLICABILITYThe universe of command and control expands in Section 102.1 General, where “the code shall apply to all matters affecting or relating to structures and premises,” as set forth in Section 101. 102.1 continues by stating that where “different sections of the code specify different requirements, the most restrictive shall apply.”
Section 102.2 Maintenance declares that the owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings, structures and premises.
“None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
One might add that anyone who actually believes that he owns real property is under a strong delusion, as our further study of the IPMC will demonstrate.
Section 102.8 Requirements not covered by code, states, “Requirements necessary for the strength, stability or proper operation of an existing fixture, structure or equipment, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this code shall be determined by the code official.”
SECTION 103 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
Government thrives upon bureaucracy. Section 103.1 General creates upon adoption “the department of property maintenance inspection” and the appointed “executive official in charge thereof shall be known as the code official.” “The code official shall not be removed from office except for cause” (103.2), and “shall have the authority to appoint a deputy code official, other related technical officers, inspectors and other employees.”
Section 103.4 Liability provides immunity from personal liability for all charged with the enforcement of the code. The jurisdiction (adopting body) shall defend the enforcers against all claims.
SECTION 104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL
Section 104.1 General “The code official shall enforce the provisions of this code.” The code is made law; the code official is the law enforcement officer. As with Conservation Department “Agents,” and Forest Service “Rangers,” who were initially unarmed and believed to be friendly—but are now armed, generally feared, or considered likely to be hostile—may one expect that code enforcement “deputies” shall one day holster a sidearm.
Recall that in many cities the Department of Public Safety is its police, and often, fire departments. Section 104.2 Rule-making authority, grants the code official “authority as necessary in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare,” this is police, or executive power. 104.2 continues: “to adopt and promulgate rules and procedures,” this is legislative power. And 104.2 continues: “to interpret and implement the provisions of this code; to secure the intent thereof,” this is judicial power.
Sections 104.3–104.7. The code official shall make all of the required inspections, or shall accept inspections made by approved agencies or individuals, and keep written reports. The code official is authorized to enter structures or premises at reasonable times to inspect subject to constitutional restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures, if any yet exist. The code official shall carry proper identification (badge and a gun?). And the code official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with the code (ticket book?).
With the powers granted him, the opportunity and likelihood of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the code is without question. The potential for graft, corruption, bribery, and abuse of power inherent within a system without adequately defined oversight, checks and balances, or limitations is reason alone to reject the 2006 International Property Maintenance
Code at first glance.
The code official may order the owner of any premises upon which is located any structure that is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, unsafe, insanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy, and such that it is unreasonable to repair the structure, to demolish and remove such structure (110.1).
All exterior property and premises shall be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition (302.1).
All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of (jurisdiction inserts height in inches). All noxious weeds shall be prohibited (302.4).
No inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked, kept or stored on any premises, and no vehicle shall at any time be in a state of major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled. Painting of vehicles is prohibited unless conducted in an approved spray booth (302.8).
Peeling, flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted.
Roof drains, gutters and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions (304.7).
All glazing materials (window glass) shall be maintained free from cracks and holes (304.13.1).
All exterior property and premises, and the interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage.
Rubbish. Combustible and noncombustible waste materials, excepting garbage; the term shall include the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke and other combustible materials, paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, tin cans, metals, mineral matter, glass, crockery and dust, and other similar materials.
Garbage. The animal or vegetable waste resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
-Definitions Chapter 2—Section 202
The above citations from the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code should be adequate to alert people and governments to the intentioned assault on private property ownership that is the heart of ICC’s Frankenstein creation. We must recall that the International Property Maintenance Code is but “A Member of the International Code Family.”
The intention of this code package may be to so regulate, restrict, condition and invade individual self-determination, that the abolition of private property will be soon realized. Americans will retain all the expense, toil and responsibility of private property ownership without their customary and traditional right to and benefit from individual initiative that our forefathers enjoyed.
The surest pathway available to governments implementing the United Nations Agenda 21: Sustainable Development programme for action in their communities is via the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. And the surest way for We the People to prevent the destruction of our unalienable right to Life, Liberty and Property is to become Vocal Local and say No! to Mitigation Planning, No! to Comprehensive Planning and Zoning, and again, No! to the International Code Council and their comprehensive model codes!
As globalism transitions from global to local (localism) we the people must be ever vigilant, well informed, and prepared to meet the globalists at the grassroots level, then become Vocal Local!
Are there any questions?
William Roberts broadcast the content of this article on October 16, 2006 w/ Jerry Hughes “Straight Talk” http://www.accentradionetwork.com/st.htm
"Will from Missouri" can be reached by E-mail at liberum@leru.net
Privacy Statement Terms of UseFreedom 21 Santa Cruz is an IRS 501© (3) public benefit corporation.Your tax deductible contribution is valuable for the continuation or our work.Content © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, All Rights Reserved.Design & Programming © 2005, 2006 Terra Eclipse Web Design.
Topic: Private Property Security
February 13, 2007Chapter Seven of Agenda 21 calls for the establishment of a “culture of safety.” All of Agenda 21, Chapter 7 is the expansion of UN Resolution 44/236 and the foundational material for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA's) "Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning" programme that fails to provide safety and destroys liberty.
The Global Safety Cult and the Abolition of Private Property
by William B. Roberts
Hazard Mitigation Planning-Building a Sustainable AmericaAs children didn’t we learn that ours is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Wasn’t this catechism served up with a slice of Martha Washington’s apple pie, a breast of Mayflower Compact wild turkey on a platter full of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, smothered under a generous helping of his Age of Reason? But in the sissified, materialist “Mommy State” of 21st Century America haven’t we altogether been programmed to believe that insurance policies can be had to indemnify against all of our losses whether from hang nail or heart attack, auto crash or airline disaster, bank failure, hurricane, tornado, heat wave, winter storm, drought, or wildfire?
What remains of our former hallmark “rugged individualism?” Where is that free land today? Are there yet any brave souls in this, our national home?Chapter Seven of Agenda 21 calls for the establishment of a “culture of safety?” A global safety cult, that guarantees neither safety nor permits liberty, has raised from the ashes of the Cold War era Civil Defense programme. This cult has many names, of which Sustainable Development is but one. Outwardly, its exoteric intent is to keep our earthly home safe from the destructive forces of man. Esoterically, it pursues man’s ancient quest: the mastery of nature. That through the mastery of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God—man will himself be as god and master of not only Earth, but in a larger sense—master of the Universe.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as President on March 4, 1933, the depression had reached its lowest point. The people had no assurance of their future course, and a paralyzing fear gripped the nation. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt struck a note of calm confidence: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes efforts to convert retreat into advance.” The President said he would ask Congress for “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
A review of the Emergency Power Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive [Branch] Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, United States Senate, November 19, 1973, reveals that since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.
In what some call “the permanent revolution” and others have written “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” the brotherhood of man remains in a constant state of emergency. In this way, the globalist cabal facilitates its end run around national sovereignty, borders, constitutions and governments. Using its “broad executive power to wage war against the emergency,” often a state-sponsored event, even Terrorism, the international community advances it’s programme de jour, in the Hegelian Dialectic fashion—problem, reaction, and solution—the crisis theory.
On December 22, 1989, The United Nations General Assembly, during it’s 85th Plenary Meeting adopted resolution 44/236, and following on the direction of it’s December 11, 1987, resolution 42/169, the United Nations proclaimed the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction beginning on January 1, 1990 and terminating on December 31, 1999, which all remember as Y2K; a much heralded and feared, yet toothless, non-event. October 11, 2006, was the International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction.
The Annex to Resolution 44/236 had as its first objective and goal, “to reduce through concerted international action, especially in developing countries, the loss of life, property damage and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, windstorms, tsunamis, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, grasshopper and locust infestations, drought and desertification and other calamities of natural origins.”
A/Res/44/236, states at 2(a) To improve the capacity of each country to mitigate the effects of natural disasters expeditiously and effectively, . . .the establishment of early warning systems and disaster resistant structures when and where needed;
And, in A/Res/44/236, 2(e) To develop measures for the assessment, prediction, prevention and mitigation of natural disasters through programmes of technical assistance and technology transfer, demonstration projects, education and training, tailored to specific disasters and locations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these programmes;
From the entirety of the above-cited resolutions has been crafted the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning programme which, I believe, in all aspects, has been adopted by the State of Florida, Polk County, and the City of Lakeland, and likely, your hometown, your county, and your state, too!
How does a United Nations Resolution make the transition from global initiative to local law? First, through agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations conferences, in this case, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) June 3-14, 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—agreed to by President George Herbert Walker Bush; and second, through voluntary adoptions made by national, state and local governments.
In the Foreword of the UN publication Earth Summit Agenda 21, the United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, 1992, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General, wrote, “Humanity today is in the midst of a profound civilizational change.” Mr. Strong contends that we are in a “second industrial revolution—this eco-revolution.” Further, he states that the levers of economic power and change are held by “Industrialists, economists, financiers, engineers, [and] scientists.” Mr. Strong looks “to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to be the focal point for the massive effort,”
This revolution planned to effect a profound civilizational change away from production and consumption to a more secure, sustainable and equitable future is but another phase of the permanent revolution. Agenda 21 is the book that defines this ideology. Let’s look at Chapter 7:
Chapter 7 Promoting sustainable human settlement development
F) PROMOTING HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN DISASTER-PRONE AREAS
__________________
BASIS FOR ACTION
7.55 Natural disasters cause loss of life, disruption of economic activities and urban productivity, particularly for highly susceptible low-income groups, and environmental damage, such as loss of fertile agricultural land and contamination of water resources, and can lead to major resettlement of populations. Over the past two decades, they are estimated to have caused some 3 million deaths and affected 800 million people. Global economic losses have been estimated by the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator to be in the range of $30 billion per year. [150,000 disaster related deaths/year? Compared to abortion, medical malpractice, auto accident, or AIDS related deaths, this number loses its intended impact. Compared to the hundreds of billions budgeted for annual implementation of Agenda 21, and much of this from grants and concessions made by the International Community, natural disasters are almost a non-issue.]
___________
OBJECTIVE
7.58 The objective is to enable all countries, in particular those that are disaster-prone, to mitigate the negative impact of natural and man-made disasters on human settlements, national economies and the environment.
__________
ACTIVITIES
7.59 Three distinct areas of activity are foreseen under this programme area, namely, the development of a “culture of safety”, pre-disaster planning and post-disaster reconstruction.
A) DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF SAFETY
7.60 To promote a “culture of safety” in all countries, especially those that are disaster-prone, the following activities should be carried out:
(a) Completing national and local studies on the nature and occurrence of natural disasters, their impact on people and economic activities, the effects of inadequate construction and land use in hazard-prone areas, and the social and economic advantages of adequate pre-disaster planning;
(b) Implementing nationwide and local awareness campaigns through all available media, translating the above knowledge into information easily comprehensible to the general public and to the populations directly exposed to hazards; [Propaganda!]
B) DEVELOPING PRE-DISASTER PLANNING
7.61 Pre-disaster planning should form an integral part of human settlement planning in all countries. The following should be included:
(a) Undertaking complete multi-hazard research into risk and vulnerability of human settlement infrastructure, including water and sewerage, communication and transportation networks, as one type of risk reduction may increase vulnerability to another [e.g., an earthquake-resistant house made of wood will be more vulnerable to wind storm events];(c) Redirecting inappropriate new development and human settlements to areas not prone to hazards; [relocation out of harms way](e) Developing tools (legal, economic, etc.) to encourage disaster-sensitive development, including means of ensuring that limitations on development options are not punitive to owners, or incorporate alternative means of compensation; [floodplain buyout](f) Further developing and disseminating information on disaster-resistant building materials and construction technologies for buildings and public works in general; [International Codes](g) Developing training programmes for contractors and builders on disaster-resistant construction methods. Some programmes should be directed particularly to small enterprises, which build the great majority of housing and other small buildings in the developing countries as well as to the rural populations, which build their own houses;(h) Developing training programmes for emergency site managers, non-governmental organizations and community groups which cover all aspects of disaster mitigation, including urban search and rescue, emergency communications, early warning techniques, and pre-disaster planning;(j) Preparing action plans for the reconstruction of settlements, especially the reconstruction of community lifelines.
(C) INITIATING POST-DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION PLANNING
7.62 The international community, as a major partner in post-reconstruction and rehabilitation, should ensure that the countries involved derive the greatest benefits from the funds allocated by undertaking the following activities:
(a) Carrying out research on past experiences on the social and economic aspects of post-disaster reconstruction and adopting effective strategies and guidelines for post-disaster reconstruction, with particular emphasis on development-focused strategies in the allocation of scarce reconstruction resources, and on the opportunities that post-disaster reconstruction provides to introduce sustainable settlement patterns;
(c) Supporting efforts of national Governments to initiate contingency planning, with participation of affected communities, for post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Now let’s jump from point to point:
7.28 The objective is to provide for the land requirements of human settlement development through environmentally sound physical planning and land use so as to ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.
7.29 All countries should consider, as appropriate, undertaking a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a land information system in which land resources will be classified according to their most appropriate uses and environmentally fragile or disaster-prone areas will be identified for special protection measures.
7.30 (a) Establish, as appropriate, national legislation to guide the implementation of public policies for environmentally sound urban development, land utilization, housing and for the improved management of urban expansion.
(d) Encourage partnerships among the public, private and community sectors in managing land resources for human settlements development;
(e) Establish appropriate forms of land tenure that provides security of tenure for all land-users,
7.62 Scientists and engineers specializing in this field in both developed and developing countries should collaborate with urban and regional planners in order to provide the basic means to mitigate losses owing to disasters as well as environmentally inappropriate development.
7.66 Training programmes should be extended to government officials, planners, community, and non-governmental organizations to cover all aspects of disaster mitigation, such as early warning techniques, pre-disaster planning and construction, post-disaster construction and rehabilitation.
7.69 (d) Formulate appropriate land-use policies and introduce planning regulations specially aimed at the protection of eco-sensitive zones against physical disruption by construction and construction related activities;
All of Agenda 21, Chapter 7 is the expansion of UN Resolution 44/236 and the foundational material for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning programme. Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development. Hazard mitigation planning is an implementation tool for the transformation of our several states into a communal, collective, new form of land tenure that fulfills the first plank of the Communist Manifesto: The Abolition of Private Property.
How the United States is Implementing Agenda 21:
In Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC 5165, authority to create natural hazard mitigation plans exists.
In the past, federal legislation has provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process and was put into motion on October 10, 2000, when the President signed the Act (Public Law 106-390). The new legislation emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. The Act establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
Under the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has produced several volumes of text that facilitates, and simplifies the process of promoting and implementing Sustainable Development through Hazard Mitigation Planning.
Each state has its Emergency Management Agency that receives its directives from FEMA. Most, if not all, states have established regional councils (soviets—regionalism) that exist as an extra-constitutional, quasi-public, quasi-governmental layer of governance. Above county government and seemingly below state government, these regional councils are the pipelines through which the international community, and the federal government exercise their will over local governments. Programmes of action and grants-in-aid flow through these regional non-profits. They may be likened to drug pushers or pimps in the global “casino”, the “city of crime.” We the people, and the governments instituted among men, have become hooked on OPM that is, “Other People’s Money.”
We have forsaken our founder’s advice, “A people willing to sacrifice their Liberty for security deserve neither security nor Liberty.” Socialism demands that it be so.
Even a schoolboy knows that man, even a group of sincerely dedicated wealthy men, is powerless against the mighty energy of creation. “[T]o reduce through concerted international action, especially in developing countries, the loss of life, property damage and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, windstorms, tsunamis, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, grasshopper and locust infestations, drought and desertification and other calamities of natural origin”, is at best a humanitarian and altruistic pipe dream. This is the stuff of the snake oil salesman, the shrill bark of the carney, the studied deception of change agents and propagandists.
The Department of Homeland Security, like Civil Defense before it, has as its primary objective: the continuation of government. Ensuring the continuity of government, and the preservation and protection of records and critical facilities, therefore, is at the apex of the mitigation plan. Immediately below the preservation of government is the preservation of business and banking interests.
Stripped of its bluster, obfuscatory demographics and pseudo-science, the hazard mitigation plan may be reduced to one element: Floodplain Ordinance. People have been either causing floods for irrigation and other purposes, or rebuilding after floods have occurred, from the beginning of recorded time. FEMA understands and can respond to flooding.
FEMA is prepared to use the property owner’s fear of loss due to flooding, as the vehicle to relocate development out of the 100-year floodplains, which defined is any land area that has a one percent or greater chance on any day to be inundated, and other hazardous or sensitive environments. The concept is known as “floodplain buyout”, but could also be labeled “Fear Motivation.”
FEMA publications state, “citizens are ultimately responsible for their own safety and for protecting their assets from damage by preparing for potential disasters that could occur within their community.”
FEMA says that, “a sustainable community is a disaster-resistant community.” This is where
Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, flood plain buyouts, relocation of human settlement development, and the International Code Council come to the fore. Before Agenda 21, we knew much of this as Urban Renewal, but whatsoever cannot be bought out, demolished, relocated or retrofitted will soon have to be built to resist whatever the Almighty can cast upon it.
How Local Governments Implement Agenda 21:
Former FEMA director James Lee Witt has partnered with the International Code Council as CEO and serves as Chairman of the International Code Foundation. What are these International Codes and how will their implementation affect each and every American?
The International Code Council, established in 1994, is based in the United States and is a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of national model construction codes. The ICC is ahead of the curve as we move further into the Free Trade Area of the Americas. With more than 250 well-qualified super social scientists at 16 offices throughout the United States and Latin America, the International Code Council and their International Building Codes, may just be another rapidly expanding globalist monopoly.
The International Codes published by the International Code Council (ICC), include:
International Building Code®
ICC Electrical Code®—Administrative Provisions
International Energy Conservation Code®
International Existing Building Code®
International Fire Code®
International Fuel Gas Code®
International Mechanical Code®
ICC Performance Code®
International Plumbing Code®
International Private Sewage Disposal Code®
International Residential Code®
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code®, and
International Zoning Code®
These comprehensive ICC codes are created following the model code development process and are performance and prescriptive code requirements. The codes are subject to and capable of
revision. A new edition is promulgated every three years. Model codes encourage international consistency in application.
The 1998 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, begun in 1996, supercedes earlier property maintenance codes; for brevity, we will consider only the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), which governs the maintenance of existing buildings.
Ostensibly, the International Property Maintenance Code seeks to protect public health, safety and welfare without unnecessarily increasing construction costs, restricting the use of new materials, products or methods of construction, and without giving preferential treatment to particular types or classes of materials, products, or methods of construction.
Neither the ICC, nor any of those participating in the development of their codes accept any liability (accountability) resulting from compliance or non-compliance because “ICC does not have the power or authority to police or enforce compliance” with the contents of the code. “Only the governmental body that enacts the code into law has such authority.”
As with all ICC code products, the International Property Maintenance Code is available by adoption by jurisdictions internationally in accordance with proceedings establishing the jurisdictions laws. Sample adoption ordinances written with fill-in-the-blank simplicity are included in the code booklet.
The adoption Ordinance reveals the broad range of the code which embraces existing structures and premises; regulates and governs the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings and structures; provides standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions that are essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use; for the condemnation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy and use; for the demolition of such existing structures; and provides for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; together with, the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of such 2006 International Property Maintenance Code.
The ordinance is in full force and effect from and after the date of its final passage and adoption. States, counties, municipalities and other forms of governance may adopt any or all of the ICC products in like manner, and many have already done so.
We will now examine several individual sections within the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code:
SECTION 101 GENERALIn Section 101.2 Scope, the code shall “apply to all residential and nonresidential structures and all existing premises and constitute minimum requirements and standards for premises, structures, equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, operators and occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and premises, and for administration, enforcement and penalties.”
Section 101.3 Intent, states that “existing structures and premises that do not comply with these provisions shall be altered or repaired to provide a minimum level of health and safety as required within.”
SECTION 102 APPLICABILITYThe universe of command and control expands in Section 102.1 General, where “the code shall apply to all matters affecting or relating to structures and premises,” as set forth in Section 101. 102.1 continues by stating that where “different sections of the code specify different requirements, the most restrictive shall apply.”
Section 102.2 Maintenance declares that the owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings, structures and premises.
“None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
One might add that anyone who actually believes that he owns real property is under a strong delusion, as our further study of the IPMC will demonstrate.
Section 102.8 Requirements not covered by code, states, “Requirements necessary for the strength, stability or proper operation of an existing fixture, structure or equipment, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this code shall be determined by the code official.”
SECTION 103 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
Government thrives upon bureaucracy. Section 103.1 General creates upon adoption “the department of property maintenance inspection” and the appointed “executive official in charge thereof shall be known as the code official.” “The code official shall not be removed from office except for cause” (103.2), and “shall have the authority to appoint a deputy code official, other related technical officers, inspectors and other employees.”
Section 103.4 Liability provides immunity from personal liability for all charged with the enforcement of the code. The jurisdiction (adopting body) shall defend the enforcers against all claims.
SECTION 104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL
Section 104.1 General “The code official shall enforce the provisions of this code.” The code is made law; the code official is the law enforcement officer. As with Conservation Department “Agents,” and Forest Service “Rangers,” who were initially unarmed and believed to be friendly—but are now armed, generally feared, or considered likely to be hostile—may one expect that code enforcement “deputies” shall one day holster a sidearm.
Recall that in many cities the Department of Public Safety is its police, and often, fire departments. Section 104.2 Rule-making authority, grants the code official “authority as necessary in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare,” this is police, or executive power. 104.2 continues: “to adopt and promulgate rules and procedures,” this is legislative power. And 104.2 continues: “to interpret and implement the provisions of this code; to secure the intent thereof,” this is judicial power.
Sections 104.3–104.7. The code official shall make all of the required inspections, or shall accept inspections made by approved agencies or individuals, and keep written reports. The code official is authorized to enter structures or premises at reasonable times to inspect subject to constitutional restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures, if any yet exist. The code official shall carry proper identification (badge and a gun?). And the code official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with the code (ticket book?).
With the powers granted him, the opportunity and likelihood of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the code is without question. The potential for graft, corruption, bribery, and abuse of power inherent within a system without adequately defined oversight, checks and balances, or limitations is reason alone to reject the 2006 International Property Maintenance
Code at first glance.
The code official may order the owner of any premises upon which is located any structure that is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, unsafe, insanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy, and such that it is unreasonable to repair the structure, to demolish and remove such structure (110.1).
All exterior property and premises shall be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition (302.1).
All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of (jurisdiction inserts height in inches). All noxious weeds shall be prohibited (302.4).
No inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked, kept or stored on any premises, and no vehicle shall at any time be in a state of major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled. Painting of vehicles is prohibited unless conducted in an approved spray booth (302.8).
Peeling, flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted.
Roof drains, gutters and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions (304.7).
All glazing materials (window glass) shall be maintained free from cracks and holes (304.13.1).
All exterior property and premises, and the interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage.
Rubbish. Combustible and noncombustible waste materials, excepting garbage; the term shall include the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke and other combustible materials, paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, tin cans, metals, mineral matter, glass, crockery and dust, and other similar materials.
Garbage. The animal or vegetable waste resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
-Definitions Chapter 2—Section 202
The above citations from the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code should be adequate to alert people and governments to the intentioned assault on private property ownership that is the heart of ICC’s Frankenstein creation. We must recall that the International Property Maintenance Code is but “A Member of the International Code Family.”
The intention of this code package may be to so regulate, restrict, condition and invade individual self-determination, that the abolition of private property will be soon realized. Americans will retain all the expense, toil and responsibility of private property ownership without their customary and traditional right to and benefit from individual initiative that our forefathers enjoyed.
The surest pathway available to governments implementing the United Nations Agenda 21: Sustainable Development programme for action in their communities is via the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. And the surest way for We the People to prevent the destruction of our unalienable right to Life, Liberty and Property is to become Vocal Local and say No! to Mitigation Planning, No! to Comprehensive Planning and Zoning, and again, No! to the International Code Council and their comprehensive model codes!
As globalism transitions from global to local (localism) we the people must be ever vigilant, well informed, and prepared to meet the globalists at the grassroots level, then become Vocal Local!
Are there any questions?
William Roberts broadcast the content of this article on October 16, 2006 w/ Jerry Hughes “Straight Talk” http://www.accentradionetwork.com/st.htm
"Will from Missouri" can be reached by E-mail at liberum@leru.net
Privacy Statement Terms of UseFreedom 21 Santa Cruz is an IRS 501© (3) public benefit corporation.Your tax deductible contribution is valuable for the continuation or our work.Content © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, All Rights Reserved.Design & Programming © 2005, 2006 Terra Eclipse Web Design.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
URGENT: REMOVED SEC. 10305 FROM THE FARM BILL
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Subject: Urgent Saturday Action ItemWe don't normally send you Saturday action items, but some of our allies have just alerted us that we need to do so today.The annual bloated corporate welfare farm bill is coming up for a vote, perhaps as soon as Monday. A new version of this bill is passed almost every year, and it is always bad -- a monstrous rape of the taxpayers for the benefit of the wealthy and well-connected. We plan, in the near future, to begin a permanent campaign against this bill, but in the meantime . . .We need to strike at a particular part of this year's bill -- funding for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). We have been campaigning against NAIS for a long time, bombarding Congress with more than 30,000 messages. We need to make another push this morning. We have a long explanation of NAIS and why it's bad on our campaign page. We won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that NAIS will strangle small family farms to the benefit of big corporate farms. Please send Congress a message asking them to stop the Department of Agriculture from implementing NAIS. Our coalition allies ask that you specifically request that Section 10305 be removed from the Farm Bill. You can do that in your personal comments. Send your message here.Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.Jim BabkaPresidentDownsizeDC.org, Inc. D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c his the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
Subject: Urgent Saturday Action ItemWe don't normally send you Saturday action items, but some of our allies have just alerted us that we need to do so today.The annual bloated corporate welfare farm bill is coming up for a vote, perhaps as soon as Monday. A new version of this bill is passed almost every year, and it is always bad -- a monstrous rape of the taxpayers for the benefit of the wealthy and well-connected. We plan, in the near future, to begin a permanent campaign against this bill, but in the meantime . . .We need to strike at a particular part of this year's bill -- funding for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). We have been campaigning against NAIS for a long time, bombarding Congress with more than 30,000 messages. We need to make another push this morning. We have a long explanation of NAIS and why it's bad on our campaign page. We won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that NAIS will strangle small family farms to the benefit of big corporate farms. Please send Congress a message asking them to stop the Department of Agriculture from implementing NAIS. Our coalition allies ask that you specifically request that Section 10305 be removed from the Farm Bill. You can do that in your personal comments. Send your message here.Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.Jim BabkaPresidentDownsizeDC.org, Inc. D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c his the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
JURISDICTION
Click on title to go to articles on jurisdiction. This file will continue to grow with jurisdiction and procedure articles and information.
U.S. CONSTITUTION
Click on title to go to U.S. CONSTITUTION. 89 pages long from http://www.house.gov
Friday, October 26, 2007
Property Rights Protest Tomorrow - Alamorosa
RALLY/PROTEST CONCERNING VIOLATION OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS!
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27th STARTING AT 9am
AT THE ALAMOROSA TRAVEL CENTER HWY 54/70 NORTH
AT MTN. MEADOW ROAD.
JOIN US IN A NATIONAL MOVEMENT TO PROTECT OUR CIVIL
RIGHTS AND STOP GOVERNMENT POWER!!! OTHER RIGHTS PROBLEMS CAN BE DISCUSSED ALSO!
THERE WILL BE SPEAKERS IN THE MORNING AND LIVE BANDS LATER IN THE DAY.
IT WILL BE HELD IN FRONT OF THE GRUBSTAKE RESTAURANT===FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL
575-585-9638 ASK FOR MORGAN OR DESIREE!
PROPERTY RIGHTS!
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27th STARTING AT 9am
AT THE ALAMOROSA TRAVEL CENTER HWY 54/70 NORTH
AT MTN. MEADOW ROAD.
JOIN US IN A NATIONAL MOVEMENT TO PROTECT OUR CIVIL
RIGHTS AND STOP GOVERNMENT POWER!!! OTHER RIGHTS PROBLEMS CAN BE DISCUSSED ALSO!
THERE WILL BE SPEAKERS IN THE MORNING AND LIVE BANDS LATER IN THE DAY.
IT WILL BE HELD IN FRONT OF THE GRUBSTAKE RESTAURANT===FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL
575-585-9638 ASK FOR MORGAN OR DESIREE!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION ACT BILL ATTEMPT TO EXCLUDE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Alert from NONAIS.org: Article by Mary Zanoni.
Read about Senate Farm Bill S.849, sponsored by Sen. Leahy. There will be an attempted exemption of any use of the Freedom of Information Act, if this bill is passed. Cut and paste the link to NoNAIS.org to read this revealing and disturbing article.
http://nonais.org/index.php/2007/10/24/usda-attempts-to-subvert-foia/
"This proposed FOIA exemption for the commonplace contact information of livestock facilities flies in the face of the pending FOIA amendments of S. 849; those pending FOIA amendments would, inter alia, require that any legislation containing FOIA exemptions must specifically state that it contains an exemption to the disclosure normally required under the Freedom of Information Act. Yet the livestock title of the Senate Farm Bill sets forth what is in fact an unprecedented and unwarranted exemption to FOIA disclosure without once mentioning FOIA — in other words, if S. 849 were already law, it would prohibit exactly the type of under-the-radar FOIA exemption being proposed in the Senate Farm Bill livestock title. This is the more distressing for freedom-of-information advocates in that Senator Leahy, the main sponsor of S. 849, is also a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee"
Read about Senate Farm Bill S.849, sponsored by Sen. Leahy. There will be an attempted exemption of any use of the Freedom of Information Act, if this bill is passed. Cut and paste the link to NoNAIS.org to read this revealing and disturbing article.
http://nonais.org/index.php/2007/10/24/usda-attempts-to-subvert-foia/
"This proposed FOIA exemption for the commonplace contact information of livestock facilities flies in the face of the pending FOIA amendments of S. 849; those pending FOIA amendments would, inter alia, require that any legislation containing FOIA exemptions must specifically state that it contains an exemption to the disclosure normally required under the Freedom of Information Act. Yet the livestock title of the Senate Farm Bill sets forth what is in fact an unprecedented and unwarranted exemption to FOIA disclosure without once mentioning FOIA — in other words, if S. 849 were already law, it would prohibit exactly the type of under-the-radar FOIA exemption being proposed in the Senate Farm Bill livestock title. This is the more distressing for freedom-of-information advocates in that Senator Leahy, the main sponsor of S. 849, is also a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee"
SEN. MIKE SIMPSON: CATTLE GRAZING ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR FIRE FUEL REDUCTION
Senator Mike Simpson (R), Idaho, has written a letter to the House Appropriations Committee asking for an extension of aid to ranchers impacted by Idaho forest 'fire storms'. Simpson also requested reopening public lands to grazing to aid fire reduction in the state.http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2007/10/12/rockybarker/climate_disasters_prompt_call_for_funds_and_place_simpson_in_grazing_debateArticle at:
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS SUPPORT GRASS FED BEEF
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/rules.html
The UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS has come out in support of grass fed beef. Considering this organizations stance on 'climate change' and other green initiatives, this is a contrary opinion to the majority of environmentalists that condemn ranching and grazing of cattle. Click on the link below to read their letter to Martin E. O'Connor, Chief Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/ucs-comments-grassfed-beef.html
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)has come out with a new standard, that seems to favor the packing houses more than the individual producer.
Link and Action Alert from Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
http://www.msawg.org/pdf/Action%20Alert%20to%20Support%20Grass%20Fed%20Meat%20Label%20Claim.pdf
ACTION ALERTPlease Take Immediate ActionSubmit your comments supporting the proposed 99% grass or forage fed requirement forthe GRASS FED MEAT LABEL CLAIMAugust 10th DeadlineYour letter or e-mail will help prevent the good 99% grass or forage feeding requirementfrom being finalized with a less stringent standard. A weakened regulation will disrupt theimportant and growing niche market created by small and medium-sized sustainablelivestock producers, limit the positive environmental and animal health effects of the grassfed industry, and erase the consumer health benefits of grass fed animal products.Key Point: The proposed 99% grass or forage feeding requirement for livestock productslabeled “grass fed” by the USDA’s Process Verified Program should be approved.Second Point: As soon as it has finalized the new grass fed label claim rule, USDA should issuefor public comment new proposed label claim standards for free range or pasture-raised livestockand for livestock raised with no antibiotics and no supplemental hormones. (For moreinformation on these claims, see meat label claims background.Comments should be addressed to:• Letters: Chief, Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA,Room 2607-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0254• Email: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/mainAll Comments should refer to Docket No. LS-05-09.Background: After three years of intensive consultations with a wide array of sustainableagriculture, environmental, and consuer interests, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) has released a revised proposal for a grass fed meat label claim for its process-verifiedlabeling program. The revised standard, which applies to cattle, sheep and other ruminantlivestock, but not pigs, requires that animals certified as “grass fed” receive at least 99 percent oftheir lifetime energy source from a grass or forage based diet. This is a significant increase fromthe original proposal issued in late 2002 stating that at least 80 percent of the lifetime energysource comes from a grass or forage-based diet.AMS will administer the grass fed label through its Process Verified Program, under whichruminant livestock producers can request that their “grass fed” claim be verified by AMS asmeeting the standard’s feeding regime. Under the program, AMS will conduct an on-siteevaluation to ensure that the livestock is raised under the standard’s feeding regime. Meatproducts from livestock raised in accordance with the AMS grass fed standard can then belabeled with the grass fed claim along with the “USDA Process Verified” statement and shield asassurance to consumers that USDA is a third party verifier of the product.The new proposed standard issued by USDA is in response to an effort led by the SustainableAgriculture Coalition (SAC) to improve USDA’s 2002 proposal for label standards for grass fedclaims, as well as antibiotic use claims; hormone use claims; and free range claims. SACdeveloped a broad collaboration of interested parties to ask USDA for a more extensive andinclusive process that would allow input from family farm, consumer, humane, andenvironmental organizations and most importantly, sustainable livestock producers themselves,the group who worked hard to establish the grass fed market.Over the past decade, numerous scientific studies have shown that the meat and milk from grassand forage fed animals are higher in good fats that may confer health benefits on humans. Thegrass fed claim, in combination with strong standards for the other meat marketing claims stillunder consideration by AMS, will also help consumers identify meat products from animalsraised in pastured systems that lessen environmental damage and improve animal health.SAC demanded that the USDA develop a grass-fed label that helped, not hindered producerswho were already maintaining a 100% grass fed operation, and not destroy the market byallowing large confined feedlot operations to finish out the animals on a grain-based diet and stillmake claims to being grass fed. The AMS held a public listening session in 2004 on the issueand heard the same message. SAC is pleased the proposed labeling standard largely reflects themajor feeding regime portion of the consensus recommendations. SAC and its collaboratorsconvinced the USDA that the agency had the ability to transform the marketplace and either helpor hinder small and moderate sized farms and ranches that have made their livelihoods in suchclaims.Please help secure this important victory with your comment letter in support of the proposedlabel claim standard for grass fed meat! And also urge USDA to issue label claims for publiccomment on pasture requirements for free range or pasture-raised livestock and for noantibiotics or supplemental hormones.A sample comment letter follows. Feel free to adapt it and to add whatever other comments youmay wish to make about the proposed standard.Thank you!
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE OF USDA GRASS (FORAGE) FED BEEF STANDARDShttp://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm
The UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS has come out in support of grass fed beef. Considering this organizations stance on 'climate change' and other green initiatives, this is a contrary opinion to the majority of environmentalists that condemn ranching and grazing of cattle. Click on the link below to read their letter to Martin E. O'Connor, Chief Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/ucs-comments-grassfed-beef.html
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)has come out with a new standard, that seems to favor the packing houses more than the individual producer.
Link and Action Alert from Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
http://www.msawg.org/pdf/Action%20Alert%20to%20Support%20Grass%20Fed%20Meat%20Label%20Claim.pdf
ACTION ALERTPlease Take Immediate ActionSubmit your comments supporting the proposed 99% grass or forage fed requirement forthe GRASS FED MEAT LABEL CLAIMAugust 10th DeadlineYour letter or e-mail will help prevent the good 99% grass or forage feeding requirementfrom being finalized with a less stringent standard. A weakened regulation will disrupt theimportant and growing niche market created by small and medium-sized sustainablelivestock producers, limit the positive environmental and animal health effects of the grassfed industry, and erase the consumer health benefits of grass fed animal products.Key Point: The proposed 99% grass or forage feeding requirement for livestock productslabeled “grass fed” by the USDA’s Process Verified Program should be approved.Second Point: As soon as it has finalized the new grass fed label claim rule, USDA should issuefor public comment new proposed label claim standards for free range or pasture-raised livestockand for livestock raised with no antibiotics and no supplemental hormones. (For moreinformation on these claims, see meat label claims background.Comments should be addressed to:• Letters: Chief, Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA,Room 2607-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0254• Email: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/mainAll Comments should refer to Docket No. LS-05-09.Background: After three years of intensive consultations with a wide array of sustainableagriculture, environmental, and consuer interests, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) has released a revised proposal for a grass fed meat label claim for its process-verifiedlabeling program. The revised standard, which applies to cattle, sheep and other ruminantlivestock, but not pigs, requires that animals certified as “grass fed” receive at least 99 percent oftheir lifetime energy source from a grass or forage based diet. This is a significant increase fromthe original proposal issued in late 2002 stating that at least 80 percent of the lifetime energysource comes from a grass or forage-based diet.AMS will administer the grass fed label through its Process Verified Program, under whichruminant livestock producers can request that their “grass fed” claim be verified by AMS asmeeting the standard’s feeding regime. Under the program, AMS will conduct an on-siteevaluation to ensure that the livestock is raised under the standard’s feeding regime. Meatproducts from livestock raised in accordance with the AMS grass fed standard can then belabeled with the grass fed claim along with the “USDA Process Verified” statement and shield asassurance to consumers that USDA is a third party verifier of the product.The new proposed standard issued by USDA is in response to an effort led by the SustainableAgriculture Coalition (SAC) to improve USDA’s 2002 proposal for label standards for grass fedclaims, as well as antibiotic use claims; hormone use claims; and free range claims. SACdeveloped a broad collaboration of interested parties to ask USDA for a more extensive andinclusive process that would allow input from family farm, consumer, humane, andenvironmental organizations and most importantly, sustainable livestock producers themselves,the group who worked hard to establish the grass fed market.Over the past decade, numerous scientific studies have shown that the meat and milk from grassand forage fed animals are higher in good fats that may confer health benefits on humans. Thegrass fed claim, in combination with strong standards for the other meat marketing claims stillunder consideration by AMS, will also help consumers identify meat products from animalsraised in pastured systems that lessen environmental damage and improve animal health.SAC demanded that the USDA develop a grass-fed label that helped, not hindered producerswho were already maintaining a 100% grass fed operation, and not destroy the market byallowing large confined feedlot operations to finish out the animals on a grain-based diet and stillmake claims to being grass fed. The AMS held a public listening session in 2004 on the issueand heard the same message. SAC is pleased the proposed labeling standard largely reflects themajor feeding regime portion of the consensus recommendations. SAC and its collaboratorsconvinced the USDA that the agency had the ability to transform the marketplace and either helpor hinder small and moderate sized farms and ranches that have made their livelihoods in suchclaims.Please help secure this important victory with your comment letter in support of the proposedlabel claim standard for grass fed meat! And also urge USDA to issue label claims for publiccomment on pasture requirements for free range or pasture-raised livestock and for noantibiotics or supplemental hormones.A sample comment letter follows. Feel free to adapt it and to add whatever other comments youmay wish to make about the proposed standard.Thank you!
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE OF USDA GRASS (FORAGE) FED BEEF STANDARDShttp://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm
AMERICAN GRASSFED ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO AMS GRASS FED STANDARDS
http://www.americangrassfed.org/pdf/Press%20release%2010-16-07%20USDA%20claim.pdf
Cut and paste this link to go to the American Grassfed Association to the USDA Agricultural Services grass (forage)fed beef standards.
Cut and paste this link to go to the American Grassfed Association to the USDA Agricultural Services grass (forage)fed beef standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![NoNAIS.org] MA Playing Dirty, Again‏](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh8Fe6OVdXrenU3WQnPBtQCy_rvMHNnAnQR2gh2OyzgjMG8zL8JorVttyMvYFCf2QFTcheOgwb5R8Fggg9cdpdrcrQZx77Roqh0Zaw-EMjH3umYgjWmzGRAfjMx9IpaDNVzwSscLXHLxpr/s1600/MassNAISLetter120071030.jpg)