It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I am Very Proud of 5477 Americans, Are you one of them?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:40 AM

I am Very Proud of 5477 Americans, Are you one of them?

Title   Official Animal Identificaction Numbering Systems
Type   Rulemaking
Category   Domestic Animal Health Programs Summary  
Program   Veterinary Services

Comment end date March 16 2009
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Alert! Animal Owners, Farmers, Take Action! National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
War On Freedom--Question for Mr. Marrs
Today is the Most TERRIBLE Day in the History of Farming
ID Chip? You have one right now.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:40 AM
These Americans have seen through the media hype and identified the real villain, Corporations and their lobbyists. They are doing their part by commenting in the Federal Register on a rule that will seriously jeopardize our food supply. ATS has thousands of Americans reading and making comments here. Complaining about the Corporate Banksters and New World Order. But are you someone I can be proud of?

Name, Address and e-mail are required, so these brave Americans are taking the chance the USDA will retaliate once everything is in place. Again I am Very Proud of these 5477 Americans.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
Yeah, just let them know you're against them... so they know who to come for...

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:49 AM
So how about telling us exactly why you are proud of these people. What exactly about the proposed regulation is bothering you? I am not a farmer so I feel that I am not impacted by how the govt numbers cows.

[edit on 3-16-2009 by groingrinder]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by groingrinder

First YOU are Paying for part of the tab with taxes.
So far it is $136 Million. Next YOU will pay for the USDA agents and a data base system containing over 1.4 million farms (plus thousands of veterinary facilities, export/import stations, livestock barns and genetic facilities), with all their approximately 95 million cattle, 1.8 billion chickens, 60 million pigs, 93 million turkeys, 6.3 million sheep, 2.5 million goats and every other livestock species, including bison, camelids, cervids, horses and llamas. In all, more than twenty-nine species and more than two billion animals are slated to be fitted with these ID tags or be injected with transponders. Farmers must then transmit, to a national network of databases, information as basic as date of birth and every time an animal leaves or returns to a farm!

Second YOU will pay for the Added cost in food (tracking veggies is also planned)
Once person checked out a software package a few years ago The Licensing was over $6,000 More recently another figured out the cost of chipping one horse it was $1,594 Karen Nowak

Third You will pay when Big Ag succeeds in putting all the competition out of business.
This was written by a VP of Cargill in 1995 for the World Trade Organization. Do you really think Cargill is so concerned about YOUR health they have spent 12 years fighting farmers to get this enforced? Or do you think it is about BIG money for Cargill and the other members of IPC WTO and Politics of Food

Fourth You will pay with the loss of your property rights.
NOTICE that the Premises ID stays with the property as part of the deed effectively removing the Constitutional rights to privacy for that property even if it becomes a housing development later.

There are even International implications since On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, "We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do." Knight was referring to the International Criminal Court, "where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership." NAIS and the International Criminal Court

You register your premises because you have livestock (even one) and  effectively become a sharecropper, clouding title to property.  By calling the owner a stakeholder and the property a premises, this is where the gray area of property rights happens.
Stakeholder:.....Stakeholders are NOT the owners of the property, they are those who hold the property until the owner is determined.

A stakeholder is a person who holds money or other property while its owner is being determined. A stakeholder is typically involved when two persons bet on the outcome of a future event and have a third person act as the stakeholder, holding the money (or "stake[s]") they have both wagered (or "staked") until the event occurs. Courts may act as stakeholders, holding property while litigation between the possible owners resolves the issue of which one is entitled to the property. Other examples of  stakeholders include trustees who hold property until beneficiaries come of age, or an escrow agent who holds part of the purchase price of property is being held until some condition is satisfied.
A stakeholder in the context of business refers to everyone with an interest (or "stake") in what the entity does. That includes a business' vendors, employees, and customers, as well as members of a community where its offices or factory may affect the local economy or environment.

 The effects of a permanently assigned federal number to your land and the usage of the
word 'premise' instead of property is cause for serious alarm. 

The Different definitions of Premises
The word premises signifies a formal part of a deed,and is made to designate an estate; to designate is to name or entitle.  Therefore a premises has no protection under the constitution and has no exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. 
Would this property once it has a premise number, even be legal to sell?  According to the NAIS document, the premises number stays with the land forever even if there are no animals on it.  
The term premises as defined by Webster states: the preliminary and explanatory part of a deed or of a bill of equity [its being identified in the premises of a deed]  a. a tract of land with the buildings thereon, a building or part of a building with its appurtenances.
Appurtenances - an incidental right (as in a right of way) attached to a principle property right and passing in possession with it. A subordinate part or adjunct. Accessory objects.
Now on the other hand:
Property is something owned or possessed; a piece of real estate. b. the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing: ownership c. something to which a person has legal title

With all the above defined, you can see why premises is the legal word of choice for the USDA. Premises in the legal sense defines a deed or bill of equity where there is more then one person that has legal access over the items. In this case real estate and a "deed" is given to the USDA. On the other hand, if property is used, it is defined as a sole ownership, no one else has legal claim, it but the person that owns it. Another key word in the definition of premises is appurtenances. As you can see it allows a legal right of way onto land by the parties entering into the contract.

The 4th and 14th amendment protect our property rights under the constitution. Premises is a term used in a legal contract you enter into to allow others ownership, much like a lease to an apartment or other real estate you may rent or occupy. Premises are NOT protected. The USDA knew exactly what they where doing. This is why Greg Newindorf in Michigan stood his ground, but had no say over what the USDA did in coming on his property/premises (ownership lost) or what they did in tagging and testing the cows (national herd) for TB.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by f3rm1N

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist; When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist; When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist; When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew; When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf." MARTIN NIEMOELLER

I am a little old lady and I have enough guts to stand up for my rights and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH. If everyone did this who would they send for us??

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:29 PM
There are now 58002 comments on the Register.
It would be interesting to find out what is the record for comments.
Again thanks to those who care enough about their food supply to try and protect it.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:32 PM
Tell me why I should even care whether you are proud of me or not. Even if you are some kind of celebrity, that really means nothing to someone like me. Nothing personal, just the gosh-honest truth.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:56 PM

Tell me why I should even care whether you are proud of me or not. Even if you are some kind of celebrity, that really means nothing to someone like me. Nothing personal, just the gosh-honest truth.

I really do not give a crap about what you think. I do however feel proud of the people who have been working Da^n hard for several years to kill this monster. As far as I and the rest of us are concerned We are about ready to leave you to starve.

Why should I not give a pat on the back to those who have actually worked themselves into a stay in the hospital? (thankyou M.O.)

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by crimvelvet

Tell me why I should even care whether you are proud of me or not. Even if you are some kind of celebrity, that really means nothing to someone like me. Nothing personal, just the gosh-honest truth.

I really do not give a crap about what you think.

As long as we're in agreement on this. Not a one-liner.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Promised to read your posts. I drew two conclusions from the post please correct me if I am wrong;

1) This is an attempt to erode constitutional rights by using the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit the law was instituted to preserve. So in essence all rights to property would no longer apply to premises as you would never actually own a dwelling.

2) By enforcing tagging (or other heavy regulation) you make subsistence farming or low level farming non viable economically and move it into the hands of corporations.


Didn't realize you were a mature lady - I only mention this because it must be very frustrating to see a country you were so proud of end up in its current state, what is more when the country you worked so hard to preserve has a youth that really doesn't understand patriotism yet adorns itself with the Flag.

I found at a young age that I knew very little so there was plenty of room to learn and the best people to teach us were those who had seen it all come before, especially as in the present knowledge by the masses is seldom sought in books and is altered to suit a set of requirements.

Be consoled that your words are not lost on this generation and that we shall one day be looking at our children, and dependent on the choices we make in the now it will either be a feeling of despair or one of joy.

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:11 AM
well, I tried to get on and comment but when I searched for aphis-2007-0096 I got 9,000 search results. can you clue me in? Also, not being aware of the contents of the bill (although I can be sure it's nefarious) what sort of comment should I make? thanks.

new topics

top topics


log in