• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NAIS: Mother Of All Ag Bribes

A

Anonymous

Guest
An e-mail I got today......
Interesting story. A lot of bribe money is changing hands. If you prefer here is a link.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/article_17332.cfm

or here is the story.




NAIS: Mother Of All Ag Bribes

* Press Release
By Darol Dickinson
NAIS Stinks, March 21, 2009
Straight to the Source

Attached is the USDA spread sheet for NAIS bribes---- sanitized as cooperative agreements. These are the funds received by tribes, states, government employees and companies who promise to enroll properties for USDA. Listed is only a scintilla of the cost. Every veterinarian, county extension agent, and ASCS office employee has been coerced to distribute NAIS literature and "speak kindly" about enrolling. The real cost is well above published data required by law. There are millions being spent monthly. Check it out at http://www.usaspending.gov/index.php

The National Pork Board got their trough filled with $800,000. That is why USDA tapped them for the emphatic NAIS report to the Subcommittee hearing March 11. The hogs are bought. In the funeral business these are called "rental pallbearers." (Not about friendships, just money for the moment.)

FFA got $359,995 to sign up their kids before they could show at fairs. The hesitant children who refuse are considered rebels and malcontents.

American Angus Assn got $594,585 to hammer the horns off their members. They also used the $$ to hammer enrollments from non AAA member Angus clients of AAA members who did not surrender to NAIS.

The Holstein Assn made a bold strong testimony at the hearing. They stuck $1,754,428 in the milk bucket so they were glad to brag about NAIS before Congress. Their milk drinking political wing National Milk Producers Assn stuck $1,027,000 in the milk tank from USDA. That is why dairies were forced to enroll property or they could not sell their milk. They closed down numerous Amish dairies with this dirty heartless trick.

Notice the Indian tribes are the most numerous to have coins placed in their teepees? The tribal leaders cut the deals with USDA and automatically listed tribe members who had livestock. The numbers are jumbled together so you can't locate the total Indian enrollments. (Some Indian tribes have tribal managed herds so every tribe member receives a percentage of the income. This would let every tribe member unknowingly enroll in NAIS.)

USDA gets to collect and govern the Beef Checkoff millions. The state groups and numerous hands that get these $$$ all promote NAIS. They all love NAIS? The Beef Checkoff should not be collected and managed by USDA? USDA has habitual holes in their bucket.

Massachusetts has a 227% property sign up. The Ag Census reports that the US has over 3,910,022 farms that qualify to enroll in mandatory NAIS. USDA says there are 1.4 million. Therefore, when they get 100% sign-up there will be another 200% left freely roaming the barn yard. By real numbers they have 9.7% signed up now, not 35% as USDA falsely, under oath, told Congress. If you removed the Indian "bribe" enrollments the USDA has about 4% of the US properties "volunteered." How sad the USDA has become? Every one should be so ashamed of this expensive dismal branch of the government.

Bribery is not always frugal when spending other people's money. In fact this project has wasted truck loads of tax money. The cost per person enrolled for NAIS property is a putrid fact. The sickest is Rhode Island with an expenditure of $169,520 and only 15 people surrendered. Alaskan farmers cost $3,083 each. California $708. Connecticut $1,994. Hawaii $1,085. Montana $1,452. New Mexico $695. Wyoming $1,119. Vermont $5,776. Those who spend other's money, in the case of NAIS, have had amateur supervision from USDA with the appearance of no remorse.

The Washington DC wealth distributors have given USDA a $138,000,000 property sign up budget and more is on the way. As the spread sheet shows, some $40 million is concealed. As a fungible issue this may involve homes in the islands, company planes or "ladies of the night."

We live in a day that bribes, campaign donations, and cooperative agreements are highly respected in nearly every association, tribe and government office. USDA uses subject's tax money to bribe universities and USDA outlets to demand specific performances. Few government offices have the courage to refuse a nice sweet bribe regardless of the smell of Machiavellianism.

NAIS is the farm issue of the hour. USDA has been to the vault to drink the Kool-Aid. You, the enforced ones, call your enforcers and remind them ---- an election is coming. Don't fund one penny to NAIS!! Stop this scam now!!

For more info www.naisSTINKS.com or [email protected]
Rancher
 

mrj

Well-known member
What a conspiracy theory bonanza that website is! Amazing what people can dream up when they have nothing of value to do with their minds or their time, isn't it?

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

AT IS BEGINNING TO GET WHAT HE WISHED (AND VOTED) FOR! :wink:

You forget- that was all doled out under your Cultist Hero GW Bush- and his USDA Secretaries Vennaman, Johanns and Shafer... :wink: :p :lol:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

AT IS BEGINNING TO GET WHAT HE WISHED (AND VOTED) FOR! :wink:

You forget- that was all doled out under your Cultist Hero GW Bush- and his USDA Secretaries Vennaman, Johanns and Shafer... :wink: :p :lol:

How much of MCOOL would that have funded when it was passed into law in 2002 instead of a corporate sponsored NAIS?


Our government is for sale and they are using OUR MONEY to buy it!
 

don

Well-known member
governments have always been for sale. maybe we should quit believing the history they taught us in school, acknowledge how things really work and try to change it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

AT IS BEGINNING TO GET WHAT HE WISHED (AND VOTED) FOR! :wink:

You forget- that was all doled out under your Cultist Hero GW Bush- and his USDA Secretaries Vennaman, Johanns and Shafer... :wink: :p :lol:

How much of MCOOL would that have funded when it was passed into law in 2002 instead of a corporate sponsored NAIS?


Our government is for sale and they are using OUR MONEY to buy it!

Yep- that money could and should have been used to implement the consumer/producer requested Congressionally passed M-COOL LAW rather than GW's boys crawling in bed with the AMI/Tysons/Swifts/NCBA and instead trying to shove thru a RULE they wanted to mandate upon everyone without even Congressional approval....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tex said:
Oldtimer said:
You forget- that was all doled out under your Cultist Hero GW Bush- and his USDA Secretaries Vennaman, Johanns and Shafer... :wink: :p :lol:

How much of MCOOL would that have funded when it was passed into law in 2002 instead of a corporate sponsored NAIS?


Our government is for sale and they are using OUR MONEY to buy it!

Yep- that money could and should have been used to implement the consumer/producer requested Congressionally passed M-COOL LAW rather than GW's boys crawling in bed with the AMI/Tysons/Swifts/NCBA and instead trying to shove thru a RULE they wanted to mandate upon everyone without even Congressional approval....

They impose on our freedoms here while they can't control the borders or even tell what products came from other countries.

What a move toward Fascism!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Well, NAIS didn't happen under Bush because of the backlash from citizens/ranchers, etc.

But it will happen under Zer0 cause he doesn't care what we think............ He knows best. :roll:

Had you rather the government spend money to try and convince the people that NAIS is necessary, or would you rather they just mandate it by hiding it in a Food Safety Bill like Zer0 is doing?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
An e-mail I received this morning...

For a fun-filled afternoon, try tracing all the interwoven boards among the organizations involved in developing the NAIS, and how their staff move from one organization to another—a consultant one year, an employee of another company the next, and then a government worker.

And when you do this fun filled afternoon of revolving door jobs and groups- don't forget to include in NCBA and its revolving door of officers/employees that are back and forth between the government/multinationals/NCBA....

Stop National Animal ID

Sold Out by Farm Bureau—Consensus on Animal ID
by Karin Bergener
Now let’s go back to that 1994 technology conference. Nancy Robinson’s remarks make clear that the attending organizations had long been involved in designing an animal identification system. The minutes, posted by NIAA, provide us a stake in the ground—they’ve been at it at least 12 years. At the end of the symposium Robinson led a discussion on what the components of an animal identification system would be. Kenneth Olson, on behalf of the American Farm Bureau, was among those speaking on the record.

Robinson challenged the group to come to a consensus on animal identification. The group complied. Among the aspects participants specified were that animal ID:

had to be national;
would be mandatory;
would be driven by economics (and they needed to figure out how to make it profitable for packers, slaughterhouses, and all other participants);
had to have a uniform system of identification;
would access other commercial databases;
would include both a unique premises ID and a unique animal ID;
would use a microchip called ISO as the standard for identifying individual animals;
would have to protect confidentiality, provide for the needs of the regulatory sector, and allow for private enterprise.
During the discussion Nancy Robinson asked, “Do we need a national ID system other than what we already have in place?” The minutes state, “YES—Audience agrees.”

So what was left to develop or decide? Very little.

Farm Bureau was in from the beginning. Farm Bureau knew, by at least 1994 and likely well before then, what the large producers and government were advocating. Farm Bureau helped design the NAIS. Farm Bureau was an active participant and advocate.

Farm Bureau is not, as it implies to its members, just trying to help members follow government policies. Farm Bureau {made} the policies.


For a fun-filled afternoon, try tracing all the interwoven boards among the organizations involved in developing the NAIS, and how their staff move from one organization to another—a consultant one year, an employee of another company the next, and then a government worker. You already have a start with Farm Bureau’s Jim Fraley and David Miller as members of the NIAA board of directors, to which you can add Jon Johnson of Texas Farm Bureau. Another prime example is Kevin Kirk, who began his career with Farm Bureau and is now NIAA treasurer and also the person responsible for implementing premises registration and mandatory radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on cattle, in his job with the Michigan Department of Agriculture, the beginning of NAIS in Michigan.

The same people appear year after year at NIAA meetings and the annual technology conference. It’s a closed group of companies that stand to make huge fortunes on animal ID—microchip and software manufacturers, consultants, and database companies. No meaningful input from outsiders ever occurs; instead, the same people kept cycling among the organizations involved. As a member of this closely knit group, Farm Bureau was there from the beginning—not as an advocate for its independent farm members, but as an ally of multinational agribusinesses. Everyone in this group has been, as one anti-NAIS activist put it, “drinking the same Kool-Aid.” The result is an unwavering dedication to implementing NAIS.

“Fringe groups need to be listened to, but they will not provide meaningful direction to the industry,” said NIAA insider Dr. Holland of South Dakota. If the people making up NIAA have worked together for more than 15 years, without input from the outside—and not even Farm Bureau members were consulted when Farm Bureau established its NAIS policy—then we independent farmers and ranchers must appear to be on the far fringe.

Karin Bergener is an attorney living in Freedom, Ohio, a former member of the board of directors of the Portage County, Ohio, Farm Bureau, and co-founder of Liberty Ark Coalition. This article appeared in the Holiday 2006 issue of Rural Heritage.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Vilsack open to mandatory livestock traceback
Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:12pm EDT
By Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON (Reuters) The United States may need to consider mandatory farmer participation in a livestock traceback system, but insight must first be gathered from opponents of the idea, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Friday.

"There is very serious dissatisfaction with the current system" among lawmakers who are convinced the voluntary process is not working as well as it should be, Vilsack said in an interview with Reuters.

"What I'm hoping to do is get a system, whether it's voluntary or mandatory ... that works," he said.

"It may very well be that you need a mandatory system, but in order for it to work you have to have people understand why you are doing it and understand that they have the opportunity to have their concerns voiced and listened to."

Ultimately, he said whatever path livestock tracking takes, it must protect the country from market disruptions and homeland security threats. It also must be supported by a majority of the people who are willing to comply with the system rather than find a way around it.

The current national animal identification program is intended to track the home farm and herdmates of sick animals within 48 hours of an animal disease outbreak. Farmers are not obliged to participate in the program, which was embraced by USDA after the discovery of the first U.S. case of mad cow disease in 2003.

Some lawmakers have questioned the effectiveness of the program, which has consumed $128 million over five years to create a voluntary system.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said earlier this month he supported a mandatory system as a way to avoid devastating losses from virulent diseases.

Cattle groups have been cool to USDA's traceback plan. They fear high costs for equipment to carry out the system, question whether USDA can keep the information confidential and worry about their cattle intermingling on public lands.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which supports a voluntary program, met with Vilsack earlier on Friday.

He "assured us that the (traceback system) must be workable for ranchers," said NCBA President-elect Steve Foglesong.

"We understand the need for an animal identification plan that is an effective disease surveillance and monitoring tool, but it must also serve the needs of our livestock producers on public and private lands."

Vilsack said USDA would meet with groups concerned about a mandatory system to register their concerns and work toward developing a system they would be more willing to embrace.

"I'm hopeful that we can bring people in and lay out on the table what are your concerns about a mandatory system," said Vilsack, a former Iowa governor. "Let's work through them and see if we can get to a point where we can then fashion a mandatory system that would do the job and would work."

About 35 percent of livestock producers have registered their premises under the voluntary program. Relatively few livestock markets or slaughterhouses are enrolled.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Relatively few livestock markets or slaughterhouses are enrolled.



The USDA can not regulate the slaughterhouses without some pinko organization like PETA coming and exposing how bad of a job they really do.

We have to realize that most problems occur at the slaughter houses and under the noses of the USDA. If they can not take care of the problems there, why in the heck do they need more authority?

This is about like the immigration service asking Mexico to get a national ID system for Mexicans so the immigration service can identify illegal aliens that get through instead of doing their job at the border.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Judge rules NAIS records protected by Privacy Act
Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 03:05 PM EDT
Contributed by: PrivacyNews



A federal judge has ruled that the confidentiality of premises and other records collected in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) will be protected by the U.S. Privacy Act and, therefore, not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Source - Feedstuffs

Can anyone confirm this?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Porker, here's the full story, or did you have it? THis is from www.brownfieldnetwork, which is not pro-NAIS.

by Julie Harker, 4-8-2009:

A federal judge in Washington DC has ruled that records collected in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act because they are protected by the U.S. Privacy Act. According to Capital Press, attorney and freelance writer Mary-Louise Zanoni of Russel, New York sued the USDA last June demanding it comply with her request to view livestock and premises recorrds collected as part of NAIS, asking a federal judge to prevent the USDA from using privacy law to shield those records. Her intent, accordingto Feedstuffs.com, was to reveal what she believed would be information showing USDA had registered premises without the knowledge of property owners.

Confidentiality is one of many concerns of producers who are against a mandatory national animal identification system. This March 31 ruling, although it can be appealed, seems to put that concern to rest.

Zanoni, a staunch opponent of NAIS, is a freelance writer for The Milkweed, a dairy industry paper based in Wisconsin.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Porker, here's the full story, or did you have it? THis is from www.brownfieldnetwork, which is not pro-NAIS.

by Julie Harker, 4-8-2009:

A federal judge in Washington DC has ruled that records collected in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act because they are protected by the U.S. Privacy Act. According to Capital Press, attorney and freelance writer Mary-Louise Zanoni of Russel, New York sued the USDA last June demanding it comply with her request to view livestock and premises recorrds collected as part of NAIS, asking a federal judge to prevent the USDA from using privacy law to shield those records. Her intent, accordingto Feedstuffs.com, was to reveal what she believed would be information showing USDA had registered premises without the knowledge of property owners.

Confidentiality is one of many concerns of producers who are against a mandatory national animal identification system. This March 31 ruling, although it can be appealed, seems to put that concern to rest.

Zanoni, a staunch opponent of NAIS, is a freelance writer for The Milkweed, a dairy industry paper based in Wisconsin.

mrj


The FOIA process is totally political (meaning that they don't give you the documents they don't want you to have even though you are entitled to them) and corrupt. I know that from personal experience.

If the government has your info, it is not safe. Just look at the presidential candidates and plumber Joe who were looked up.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Another news release on the action,from Meatingplace.com, headlined:

Court ruling on NAIS favors producers' privacy rights: NCBA

by Tom Johnston

A federal court has ruled that records collected under the National Animal Identification System will be protected by the U.S. Privacy Act.

The decision means sensitive information about producers' premises, business and animals will be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

"It is important that our producers can trust that confidential business information will be protected from FOIA requests," NCBA executive Director of Legislative Affairs, Colin Woodall said in NCBA's "Capitol Concerns" newsletter. "Nevertheless, this decision can be appealed, and we will be closely monitoring that to ensure that producers' privacy rights are upheld."

NCBA said it favors VOLUNTARY (emphasis by mrj) adoption of individual animal identification programs that support genetic improvement, source verification and disease surveillance. "The private sector should have a role in providing identification solutions that fit the varying needs of America's cattle producers." Woodall said.

NCBA contends a private-sector plan provides state and federal government officials with adquate information to improve such animal health surveillance.

"From our conversation with the U.S. Department of Agruculture, we understand that it is easier to protect sensitive data from FOIA requests under a voluntary system." Woodall said "this is one more reason to support voluntary identification systems rather than a government mandate."

mrj
 
Top