It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Look Who’s Buying Up Flood Ravaged Farm Land

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+27 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
So what is really going on here? Intentional flooding to grab land from the people?

I know that this thread will bring about the HAARP claims and I guess rightfully so. This along with the chemtrails claims would give it a double whammy.

Is the weather being manipulated for monetary gain or is this just a case of coincidental circumstances creating opportunity for profit? I can't say. But further in it looks like someone has been planning something for a few years.

What I can say is that if it is all a coincidence, it's a very big one.

Updated: Look Who’s Buying Up Flood Ravaged Farm Land

www.activistpost.com...
gulagbound.com...

1. File this one under “Now It All Makes Sense”. A Missouri farming and ranching contact just got off a conference call wherein he was informed that the federal government is sending out letters to all of the flooded out farmers in the Missouri River flood plain and bottoms notifying them that the Army Corps of Engineers will offer to BUY THEIR LAND.

BUY? Not help? So their crops are destroyed and the Govt. solution is to just buy the land from them instead of helping the farmers. This doesn't seem right. Some will say that the purchasing is actually help but if the land is so ravaged, why would the Govt. want it at all? They're not in the habit of just giving money away with no possible returns. Future Food Control?


Intentionally flood massive acreage of highly productive farmground. Destroy people’s communities and homes. Catch them while they are desperate and afraid and then swoop in and buy the ground cheap. Those evil sons of bitches.

Looks like I am not the only one to think this. And below, the plot thickens with Soros at the helm.

2. Speaking of evil sons of bitches, George Soros appears to be “investing” in farmground through the same puppet company that he used to get into the grain elevator and fertilizer business. The company is called Ospraie Capital Management and is buying up farmground in a joint venture with Teays River Investments as a partner. Here is that announcement:

www.absolutereturn-alpha.com...


As you probably remember, Gavilon just recently bought both DeBruce Grain out of Kansas City and the biggest grain elevator company in the Pacific Northwest, thus making Soros (who is the money behind Gavilon through both his own Soros Fund Management AND his de facto control of Ospraie) the third-largest grain company in the U.S. with 280 million bushels of storage capacity, behind only Archer Daniels Midland (542 million bushels storage capacity) and Cargill (344 million bushels storage capacity). That citation is here: www.world-grain.com...


Bottom line: Soros, through Ospraie, is buying up farmground. Please also note that the hotlink citation above is dated June 26, 2009. My contact says this has been going on for two years – and also remember what I told you about farmground prices inflating wildly, especially in Illinois. I have personally confirmed farmground in Illinois selling for $13,000 per acre within the last month, whereas that same kind of ground in Illinois was going for $5500 per acre the day Obama was inaugurated.

More here on the 'Intentional Flooding Claims' from a different angle.
The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland
www.americanthinker.com...

IMO, if this is true, it is absolutely disgusting in the fact that these people are being bought off their land without even an idea that this may all be manipulation for a grab at food control.

I know many will say that they are not being forced and if that's the case, what is it? If there was no such thing as weather manipulation technology (if this is indeed the case) how else would TPTB get that land? Eminent Domain somehow is my guess.

Again, Coincidence?





edit on 27-6-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



+6 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Your ability to fear monger and misrepresent facts just continues to astonish. The FEderal Government offering to buy the farm land IS the Government helping out. The farmers are not required to sell their land. Building structures etc in a flood plain is a bad idea from the begining anyways.

Maybe the farmers should go with their insruance companies first, since those are the people the farmers pay to protect their investments in addition to paying out for losses.

Why must people come up with all these conspiracy theories about the government, complaining about every single action, while ignoring everythig else?

The Government gets to involved in peoples lives... The Government abuses the people... The Government wont give me money because I was dumb enough to build in a flood plain.

Personal Responsibility..

I really wish people would get over this sense of entitlement.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Well apparantly they've been at it awhile. Or you could just say it's mother nature and common to this area.

www.fema.gov...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


On the one hand, this has been standard operating procedure for quite some time. FEMA does something similar. Rather than pay out multiple claims for the same piece of property, they buy up the land and turn it into reserve or park.

On the other hand, it sure as hell is convenient that they intentionally flooded it, and now they want to buy it? I think the map of the United States is going to change at some point in the future.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
good thread I've been thinking about this ,seems that Rahm Immanuel isn't the only one who doesn't like to waste a good disaster

we the people really need to assert our strength and stop pandering to TPTB,if they don't recognize their own contracts we don't have to either we can just throw their claims in the garbage . Once the contract is broken we have no ability to violate it's terms ,or fulfill it


+8 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by jude11
 


Your ability to fear monger and misrepresent facts just continues to astonish. The FEderal Government offering to buy the farm land IS the Government helping out. The farmers are not required to sell their land. Building structures etc in a flood plain is a bad idea from the begining anyways.

Maybe the farmers should go with their insruance companies first, since those are the people the farmers pay to protect their investments in addition to paying out for losses.

Why must people come up with all these conspiracy theories about the government, complaining about every single action, while ignoring everythig else?

The Government gets to involved in peoples lives... The Government abuses the people... The Government wont give me money because I was dumb enough to build in a flood plain.

Personal Responsibility..

I really wish people would get over this sense of entitlement.


And again, relaying info backed by more info is fear mongering? Do you not see the question marks in the thread? And the line "I don't know?" This would be to invite even more info either for or against the content. But you seem to do neither.

If you can back up your claim that this is not true whatsoever, many would welcome it I would think.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Yea better to hold on to land then the toilet paper that's being traded for it

This is not the govt trying to help
Is there even the option to not sell your land while still getting some aid from the government?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Food grab? I think it's more like what your American Thinker link describes as acquiescing to the demands of radical environmentalists in returning the land to a pre-dam state. The Corps of Engineers has been under tremendous pressure to do this and now they have the means to do so all in one fell swoop.


Perhaps the environmentalists of the Corps grew tired of waiting decades to realize their dream of a "restored Missouri River." Perhaps these elements heard the warnings and saw in them an opportunity to force an immediate re-naturalization of the river via epic flood. At present, that is impossible to know, but to needlessly imperil the property, businesses, and lives of millions of people constitutes criminal negligence. Given the statements of Corps personnel, and the clear evidence of their mismanagement, the possibility that there is specific intent behind their failure to act must be investigated without delay.


And that from a liberal website...


+14 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Truthfully, I expect Monsanto to end up owning a good chunk of that land

On a side note, I have to roll my eyes at the overzealous use of the term 'fear mongering' around here these days. The OP stated that he had questions about this, not that it was evil and a step toward martial law. Calling that fear-mongering shows that some have NO CLUE what fear-mongering is, and find it easier to try and label a poster than to actually debate the topic at hand.

Pathetic.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by jude11
 


Food grab? I think it's more like what your American Thinker link describes as acquiescing to the demands of radical environmentalists in returning the land to a pre-dam state. The Corps of Engineers has been under tremendous pressure to do this and now they have the means to do so all in one fell swoop.


Perhaps the environmentalists of the Corps grew tired of waiting decades to realize their dream of a "restored Missouri River." Perhaps these elements heard the warnings and saw in them an opportunity to force an immediate re-naturalization of the river via epic flood. At present, that is impossible to know, but to needlessly imperil the property, businesses, and lives of millions of people constitutes criminal negligence. Given the statements of Corps personnel, and the clear evidence of their mismanagement, the possibility that there is specific intent behind their failure to act must be investigated without delay.


And that from a liberal website...


Yes, there are two different theories floating here but I have a hard time seeing the Govt acquiescing to anything from the environmentalists. Never have before, why now?

Interesting to say the least.

Thanks



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Thank you for this, I come here to learn, and I'm learning things. Didn't really see this as fear mongering at all.

Anyhoo... OP, maybe you can help me with this. My first thought was, how can the government Afford to do this?
If we are trillions of dollars in debt, how can they buy up all this land in the first place? I would think loans would make more sense, unless they are planning to sell it off, as previously mentioned, to groups like Monsanto and the like?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree that personal responsibility is the key issue but you also have to realize that the flood plain is the best land agriculturally speaking. It is enriched by the flooding and very valuable for growing produce. Again I agree that the insurance companies are there to cover thier losses in this situation. I am just not sure buying up thier land is actually going to help them in the long run.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


The government is mostly in debt to itself, and to us. "We the people" finance the government through purchases of bonds and bills. They take our cash and promise us cash plus interest in the future. Then, they take our cash and give a portion of it back to us through public works such as Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA among many others.

The government is currently running on kind of a ponzi scheme just like social security. They are selling the rights to "future dollars" to give themselves budget money to operate today with. If all goes well, then the population grows and the economy grows, and this scheme can last forever. When unexpected things like $5 gas, and sustained multi-front wars, and weak dollar conditions where people don't buy the bonds and bills, then we hit deep doodoo and the government doesn't know what to do next, except to print more money, give it to us as tax credits, and lie to us in the press to try and falsely prop up the economy and get it growing again.

I hope that helps. It is you and I buying this farmland for the government, based on lies and future dollars from future children.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiefsmom
Thank you for this, I come here to learn, and I'm learning things. Didn't really see this as fear mongering at all.

Anyhoo... OP, maybe you can help me with this. My first thought was, how can the government Afford to do this?
If we are trillions of dollars in debt, how can they buy up all this land in the first place? I would think loans would make more sense, unless they are planning to sell it off, as previously mentioned, to groups like Monsanto and the like?


Good questions, and assuming it's true the money to buy this land would be a mere pittance to the Fed IMO. Compared to what is spent on the Military, a drop in the bucket so to speak.

The next question is the big one. The last link in the OP would lead us to believe it's a bowing to environmentalists. It's just that on a scale this size, I find it hard to see the Govt. giving in. Unless there is another payoff that we aren't seeing here.
www.americanthinker.com...

Monsanto is always my guess tho. They seem hell-bent on total food control right from the seed level.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
A book by Naomi Klein, called 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism' sums this situation up.
Companies are prepared with the cash and 'free market solutions' to step into the chaos, they have learnt to profit from disasters.

There are many other topics in the book, for another thread maybe.

A synopsis of the book

The Shock Doctrine

Soon, imo, there will be just a few Corporations which own almost anything worth owning , I think this goes way beyond Capitalism as we understand it.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree that personal responsibility is the key issue but you also have to realize that the flood plain is the best land agriculturally speaking. It is enriched by the flooding and very valuable for growing produce. Again I agree that the insurance companies are there to cover thier losses in this situation. I am just not sure buying up thier land is actually going to help them in the long run.


Agreed.. Farmers know the risk, especially when they are in a flood plain. Knowing this risk though, they should work through their insurance companies to make sure they are completely covered if a 100 or 500 year flood occurs. Operating in these areas without taking that into consideration is a waste of time, money and resources.

Buying of the land usually means it will sit vacant, not sold to another party. If the property owner does agree to sell it to the government, the government can sell it to others. Usually what occurs is the city or county the land is in usually rezone it for either limited development or none at all.

...and yet there are people who will buy the land, develop it, and take a roll of the dice.

Personal Responsibility and the term Caveat Emptor comes to mind again though.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11

BUY? Not help? So their crops are destroyed and the Govt. solution is to just buy the land from them instead of helping the farmers. This doesn't seem right. Some will say that the purchasing is actually help but if the land is so ravaged, why would the Govt. want it at all? They're not in the habit of just giving money away with no possible returns. Future Food Control?


I dont know the specifics in this case in great enough detail to say with certainty, but, it may be "future flood control" in a sense.

Here in Tennessee, after the flood of May 2010, the government bought many of the homes that had been flooded, to prevent people from reoccupying the land, or selling it to someone else who would rebuild on that land. Which actually makes a lot more sense, financially, than simply bailing people out who persist on building on a flood plain over and over and over again.

Floods and other natural disasters are not only tragedies for the people whose homes (or farms) are destroyed or damaged, they are also incredibly expensive when the government, for whatever reason, helps the people out financially whose property has been destroyed. And "helping" rather than buying people out who are living, farming, etc., in places prone to flooding means that at some point in the future, you are probably going to faced with the same person coming to you with their hand out once again.

Much better to just purchase the land from them, and prohibit it from being occupied. Then you only have to pay for the damages ONCE, not multiple times, whenever nature acts up. (And many climate models seem to indicate that flooding will increase as the climate changes)

Honestly, its ridiculous that people have been allowed to rebuild over and over in areas that are constantly devastated by hurricanes and such, and imho, they should not be allowed to. It costs all of us in increased taxes and insurance premiums to cover the costs of the rich idiots who just HAVE to live right on the water.

Just my two cents.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Maybe you should go back and take a look at your op post. From the insinuation of the title, to the manner in which you quoted source material, to the questions you asked, and the manner in which you asked them, up to invoking HAARP.

The insinuation and overall tone of the op is that of the Evil Government is using weather modification and chemtrails to destroy peoples liveliehoods in an effort to snag their poperty.

I stand by what I said before, the post is nothing but fear mongering based on paranoia and nothing more - respectfully.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
New zealand is going to do a buy back in spots around cristchurch.
Aus govs doing buy back in northern vic,and lots of areas across qld,not sure of other states,been in the news heaps.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by jude11

BUY? Not help? So their crops are destroyed and the Govt. solution is to just buy the land from them instead of helping the farmers. This doesn't seem right. Some will say that the purchasing is actually help but if the land is so ravaged, why would the Govt. want it at all? They're not in the habit of just giving money away with no possible returns. Future Food Control?


I dont know the specifics in this case in great enough detail to say with certainty, but, it may be "future flood control" in a sense.

Here in Tennessee, after the flood of May 2010, the government bought many of the homes that had been flooded, to prevent people from reoccupying the land, or selling it to someone else who would rebuild on that land. Which actually makes a lot more sense, financially, than simply bailing people out who persist on building on a flood plain over and over and over again.

Floods and other natural disasters are not only tragedies for the people whose homes (or farms) are destroyed or damaged, they are also incredibly expensive when the government, for whatever reason, helps the people out financially whose property has been destroyed. And "helping" rather than buying people out who are living, farming, etc., in places prone to flooding means that at some point in the future, you are probably going to faced with the same person coming to you with their hand out once again.

Much better to just purchase the land from them, and prohibit it from being occupied. Then you only have to pay for the damages ONCE, not multiple times, whenever nature acts up. (And many climate models seem to indicate that flooding will increase as the climate changes)

Honestly, its ridiculous that people have been allowed to rebuild over and over in areas that are constantly devastated by hurricanes and such, and imho, they should not be allowed to. It costs all of us in increased taxes and insurance premiums to cover the costs of the rich idiots who just HAVE to live right on the water.

Just my two cents.


You bring up a good point on the rebuilding in devastated areas being aided year after year.

I just can't see the solution as buying it all up to save money tho. This is very valuable farm land and what that will do to the food supply is going to be felt throughout the World.

Not having the numbers available, I would think that the profits from the crops would be more valuable over and over, even with disaster relief once in awhile. The relief is usually localized and doesn't play into the entire area of farm land all at once.

Maybe.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join