Attention farmers and anyone who has family farms or uses kids under the age of 16 to help haul hay, tend to animals, etc. The DOL is looking to put MORE restrictions on kids working on farms. Make your opinion known! We only have until November 1 to give comments.
Click on the above link to comment.
Here is the letter from Farm Bureau
MISSOURI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
P.O. Box 658, 701 South Country Club Drive, Jefferson City, MO 65102 / (573) 893-1400
MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2011
TO: County Farm Bureau Leaders
FROM: Garrett Hawkins, Director, National Legislative Programs
RE: Urgent Action Needed!
The regulatory onslaught at the federal level continues, but this time itfs coming from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and agriculture is the target. Proposed changes in federal child labor rules, if finalized, will place more restrictions on what youth can do on the farm, increasing legal liabilities for farm families and forcing changes in the way some operators plant, harvest, handle livestock, etc. The regulations would also limit hands-on training opportunities afforded through high school agricultural education programs.
The negative impact of this rule would be felt as soon as it is finalized, and for generations of farmers to come. All farm and ranch employers affected by this proposal are encouraged to submit comments to the DOL and send copies to members of Congress. The deadline to submit comments is November 1.
Background and Potential Impacts:
This rulemaking has been in the works within the DOL for nearly a year and half and is the first significant update to the child labor rule since it was promulgated in 1970. DOL says the proposal continues to exempt family farms and does not provide protections for 16- and 17-year-olds. The changes apply to youth under age 16.
The DOL proposal could affect your operation by:
. Restricting the \Parental Exemption. rule so that farms operated by partnerships and corporations may not benefit. As a result, the rule does not take into account the ownership patterns and operations of family farms because many family farms involve different members and generations of the same family working on the farm. DOL wants to limit the \family farm. exemption solely to the children of the owner or operator of a farm. Other family youth.nieces, nephews or grandchildren.would be restricted in what jobs they could do on the family farm by this rule.
. Calling into question longstanding practices in agriculture, including livestock welfare, planting, operating a tractor, and harvesting of fruits and vegetables, working near grain bins & elevators, silos, and livestock barns.
. Affecting standard education and training for future farmers by reducing on-farm learning opportunities. A student-learner on a farm must satisfactorily complete at least 90 hours of systematic school instruction in agricultural education at or above the 8th grade level before working on the farm.and even then the exemption would only apply to power-driven equipment.
. Setting a maximum height restriction of 6 feet (no work on roofs, scaffolds, elevated farm structures, vehicles, machines and implements at elevations greater than 6 feet).
. Prohibiting young hired workers from engaging and assisting in many animal husbandry practices to include those than inflict pain upon the animal and/or are likely to result in unpredictable animal behavior such as, but not limited to, branding, breeding, dehorning, vaccinating, castrating, and treating sick or injured animals. The prohibition would also include herding animals in confined spaces such as feed lots or corrals, or on horseback, or using motorized vehicles such as trucks or all terrain vehicles.
. Potentially preventing youth from working under \extreme temperatures. (e.g., harvesting fruit) or being paid piece rate wages for such jobs. DOL contends it is seeking input to prevent heat-related illnesses and injury to workers in the field.
. The Department of Labor rule does not take into account the unique organization of family farms being owned and operated by many members and generations of one family.
. Farms and ranches provide a unique educational and training experience to learn about horticulture, animal care & welfare, equipment operation, environmental protection among other unique opportunities found exclusively on a farm.
. Traditional farm activities performed by youth are threatened by this rule.
. Family members and other workers on the farm are protected by numerous laws and regulations. Parts of this rule represent regulatory over-reach. It does not recognize the unique structure of today's family farm operations and the traditions that the family farm provides to all workers.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Congressman Billy Long Listening Sessions this week around District 7
Congressman Billy Long is holding Listening Sessions around District 7 this week. He'll be in Nixa Thursday morning and Springfield Friday morning. We need as many people as possible to show up and let him know what we want him to do in Congress!!
Here is his newsletter.
October 22, 2011
The best policy doesn't start in DC; it usually starts in the District, with a common sense idea from a constituent. That's why we're making it easier for you to let us know your thoughts and hear your suggestions.
We'll be holding listening sessions all across the District next week. I hope you can drop by one next week as members of my staff will be in every county in the 7th District to personally answer any questions or concerns you might have. Below is the schedule and I encourage everyone to go and make your voices heard.
Monday, October 24:
9:00am – Newton
Newton County Courthouse, basement conference room, 101 S. Wood Street, Neosho
2:00pm – McDonald
McDonald County Courthouse, hallway outside Commissioner’s office, 602 Main Street, Pineville
Tuesday, October 25:
9:00am – Jasper
Joplin Public Library, Large meeting room, 300 Main Street, Joplin
2:00pm – Lawrence
Aurora Branch Library, Community Room, 202 Jefferson, Aurora, 65605
Wednesday, October 26:
9:00am – Barry
Cassville Library, Downstairs Meeting Room, 301 W. 17th St., Cassville
2:00pm – Stone
Stone County Library, 323 State Hwy. 248, Galena
Thursday, October 27:
9:00am – Christian
Nixa City Hall, Chamber Conference Room, 715 West Mt. Vernon Street, Nixa
2:00pm –Taney
Branson City Hall, Municipal Court Room, 2nd Floor, 110 West Maddux, Branson
Friday, October 28:
9:00am – Greene County
The Library Center, Meeting Room B, 4653 South Campbell, Springfield
2:00pm – Polk
Polk County Library, Meeting Room, 1690 West Broadway, Bolivar
Here is his newsletter.
October 22, 2011
The best policy doesn't start in DC; it usually starts in the District, with a common sense idea from a constituent. That's why we're making it easier for you to let us know your thoughts and hear your suggestions.
We'll be holding listening sessions all across the District next week. I hope you can drop by one next week as members of my staff will be in every county in the 7th District to personally answer any questions or concerns you might have. Below is the schedule and I encourage everyone to go and make your voices heard.
Monday, October 24:
9:00am – Newton
Newton County Courthouse, basement conference room, 101 S. Wood Street, Neosho
2:00pm – McDonald
McDonald County Courthouse, hallway outside Commissioner’s office, 602 Main Street, Pineville
Tuesday, October 25:
9:00am – Jasper
Joplin Public Library, Large meeting room, 300 Main Street, Joplin
2:00pm – Lawrence
Aurora Branch Library, Community Room, 202 Jefferson, Aurora, 65605
Wednesday, October 26:
9:00am – Barry
Cassville Library, Downstairs Meeting Room, 301 W. 17th St., Cassville
2:00pm – Stone
Stone County Library, 323 State Hwy. 248, Galena
Thursday, October 27:
9:00am – Christian
Nixa City Hall, Chamber Conference Room, 715 West Mt. Vernon Street, Nixa
2:00pm –Taney
Branson City Hall, Municipal Court Room, 2nd Floor, 110 West Maddux, Branson
Friday, October 28:
9:00am – Greene County
The Library Center, Meeting Room B, 4653 South Campbell, Springfield
2:00pm – Polk
Polk County Library, Meeting Room, 1690 West Broadway, Bolivar
Monday, October 17, 2011
Ozark Board of Aldermen 10/17/11
Generally speaking, I find most public meetings to be pretty boring. I think most people would agree with me. That's probably why there were only 8 people at tonight's Board of Aldermen meeting and 5 of those were on the agenda to speak. Two of those were city employees who were required to be there.
It was pretty much a boring, routine meeting. They passed a resolution to sign a cooperative agreement with the city of Springfield for pictometry for sectors of Greene and Christian Counties. That's fancy talk that means the city of Springfield is paying for aerial photos of the area and the city of Ozark is gonna pay them for our part. It's $5200, which seems like a bargain to me. And I guess it's precise enough to see if you've put in a swimming pool or a new deck on the back of your house so they can up your tax assessment. Of course I'm sure that's not the reason they're doing it.
They passed a couple of bills changing some language in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ozark. That's when it got interesting, at least to me. Not because of the language changes...all they were doing was striking some old paragraphs and replacing them with some new paragraphs and changing "Mayor and Board of Aldermen" to "Board of Aldermen meetings." No, what interested me is that one of the aldermen, the Mayor Pro-Tem, according to his name plate, was ready to throw out the entire ordinance because there were a couple of amendments. The amendments were pretty minor. They had to do with whether absent aldermen could participate in meetings via electronic means and/or vote either by electronic means or by proxy.
My opinion of that is that there are very few times something must be acted on immediately. If they have a quorum they should do business as usual. If they don't have a quorum, really, what can't wait two weeks? I'm sure there are times when something can't wait, but I seriously can't think of any off the top of my head. Certainly members should not be proxy voting or voting by text, e-mail or fax except in extreme emergencies. The whole point of a public meeting is to hear discussion about an issue. If you're voting on it without hearing the discussion, what is the point of the discussion?
Finally they passed the amendments and eventually the ordinance. But I was surprised at the Mayor Pro-Tem's lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Maybe they don't often amend ordinances or amend amendments to ordinances. Why not? Do they normally just rubber stamp everything as it comes from the city attorney and city administrator's recommendations? Surely not! I hope not anyway! A ordinance that comes before the board should be well thought out but the board has a responsibility to study the proposal and make changes as they discuss it and think about it. If they throw it out and start over every time there are amendments they are wasting a lot of time.
I recommend the Mayor Pro-Tem visit and get his very own copy of RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief) and brush up on parliamentary procedure. It's too bad he's not a PTA mom, he could have joined us in Columbia last weekend and saw excellent parliamentary procedure in action.
They plowed through lots of other business, approved buying a new zero turn lawnmower, got an update on the new utility billing cycles that start next month and then moved on to the most interesting part of the meeting.
A resident came and asked the city to fix the sidewalk in front of his house because he has been having drainage problems. He had already come before the Board of Aldermen two years ago asking for the same thing, and his request had been denied. But apparently, over the course of the time this guy has been seeking out assistance with this problem, he's been told yes the city will fix it, no the city will not fix it, yes they will, no they won't. And on and on. Certainly all involved will agree he's gotten the runaround.
But...and to me this is a VERY BIG BUT...he freely admits he has drainage problems both in his front yard and in the back. He's already obtained an easement across his neighbor's property so he can put in some drainage to tie into the city's storm drains. He's been having water problems with big rains for close to five years. I know in five years the Finley River has overflowed its banks and flooded the park at least once a year so I imagine he's had a lot of water over at his place multiple times as well. And he still hasn't done anything about it.
He's waiting for the city to lower the sidewalk in front of his house by anywhere from 1.2 inches to 3.6 inches before he puts in drains. Seriously? What if the city spends the time and money to do this and it still doesn't fix his drainage problems? Seems to me he should be a responsible landowner and do his part first. If he still has problems in the front yard, then he should approach the city.
He and the president of his homeowner's association seem to think because the city's building inspectors approved the sidewalk, they should fix it. However, the city did not build it, the contractor did. I guess if the contractor did it wrong and the city approved it, they are both in the wrong. I believe the reality is that this place was built when there was a construction boom in the area and I'm sure some things maybe slipped through the cracks. It's certainly possible there has been some erosion or settling in his yard, causing the sidewalk to be higher than the surrounding ground. Wouldn't you want the sidewalk higher? I honestly don't know. We don't even have sidewalks in my neighborhood. I'm not sure I've ever lived anywhere where there were sidewalks.
In any case, it's his property flooding! It's his property getting water damage! Is the city of Ozark going to come over here if my basement floods after a big rain and fix it? I highly doubt it. Oh, by the way, my basement is dry as a bone. If it wasn't, I'd fix it. OK well I wouldn't but I would pay someone who knows what they are doing to do it.
Two of the aldermen, one from Ward III and one from Ward I, both mentioned the idea of personal responsibility and gave examples of what they had themselves done to deal with stormwater problems. Ward III even went so far as to ask why Ozark taxpayers should have to pay for this. The Mayor also cited personal responsibility.
However, in the end, they decided to take it under advisement and come to a decision at the next meeting. I really hope they stick to their guns. To me it sets a dangerous precedent to for the city to go around paying for stormwater problems, especially when a landowner hasn't even made an effort to fix the part of the problem all agree is his responsibility.
I've lived here for eight years and this was my first Board of Aldermen's meeting. It won't be my last. I'm awake. I'm paying attention. And I'm not going away.
It was pretty much a boring, routine meeting. They passed a resolution to sign a cooperative agreement with the city of Springfield for pictometry for sectors of Greene and Christian Counties. That's fancy talk that means the city of Springfield is paying for aerial photos of the area and the city of Ozark is gonna pay them for our part. It's $5200, which seems like a bargain to me. And I guess it's precise enough to see if you've put in a swimming pool or a new deck on the back of your house so they can up your tax assessment. Of course I'm sure that's not the reason they're doing it.
They passed a couple of bills changing some language in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ozark. That's when it got interesting, at least to me. Not because of the language changes...all they were doing was striking some old paragraphs and replacing them with some new paragraphs and changing "Mayor and Board of Aldermen" to "Board of Aldermen meetings." No, what interested me is that one of the aldermen, the Mayor Pro-Tem, according to his name plate, was ready to throw out the entire ordinance because there were a couple of amendments. The amendments were pretty minor. They had to do with whether absent aldermen could participate in meetings via electronic means and/or vote either by electronic means or by proxy.
My opinion of that is that there are very few times something must be acted on immediately. If they have a quorum they should do business as usual. If they don't have a quorum, really, what can't wait two weeks? I'm sure there are times when something can't wait, but I seriously can't think of any off the top of my head. Certainly members should not be proxy voting or voting by text, e-mail or fax except in extreme emergencies. The whole point of a public meeting is to hear discussion about an issue. If you're voting on it without hearing the discussion, what is the point of the discussion?
Finally they passed the amendments and eventually the ordinance. But I was surprised at the Mayor Pro-Tem's lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Maybe they don't often amend ordinances or amend amendments to ordinances. Why not? Do they normally just rubber stamp everything as it comes from the city attorney and city administrator's recommendations? Surely not! I hope not anyway! A ordinance that comes before the board should be well thought out but the board has a responsibility to study the proposal and make changes as they discuss it and think about it. If they throw it out and start over every time there are amendments they are wasting a lot of time.
I recommend the Mayor Pro-Tem visit and get his very own copy of RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief) and brush up on parliamentary procedure. It's too bad he's not a PTA mom, he could have joined us in Columbia last weekend and saw excellent parliamentary procedure in action.
They plowed through lots of other business, approved buying a new zero turn lawnmower, got an update on the new utility billing cycles that start next month and then moved on to the most interesting part of the meeting.
A resident came and asked the city to fix the sidewalk in front of his house because he has been having drainage problems. He had already come before the Board of Aldermen two years ago asking for the same thing, and his request had been denied. But apparently, over the course of the time this guy has been seeking out assistance with this problem, he's been told yes the city will fix it, no the city will not fix it, yes they will, no they won't. And on and on. Certainly all involved will agree he's gotten the runaround.
But...and to me this is a VERY BIG BUT...he freely admits he has drainage problems both in his front yard and in the back. He's already obtained an easement across his neighbor's property so he can put in some drainage to tie into the city's storm drains. He's been having water problems with big rains for close to five years. I know in five years the Finley River has overflowed its banks and flooded the park at least once a year so I imagine he's had a lot of water over at his place multiple times as well. And he still hasn't done anything about it.
He's waiting for the city to lower the sidewalk in front of his house by anywhere from 1.2 inches to 3.6 inches before he puts in drains. Seriously? What if the city spends the time and money to do this and it still doesn't fix his drainage problems? Seems to me he should be a responsible landowner and do his part first. If he still has problems in the front yard, then he should approach the city.
He and the president of his homeowner's association seem to think because the city's building inspectors approved the sidewalk, they should fix it. However, the city did not build it, the contractor did. I guess if the contractor did it wrong and the city approved it, they are both in the wrong. I believe the reality is that this place was built when there was a construction boom in the area and I'm sure some things maybe slipped through the cracks. It's certainly possible there has been some erosion or settling in his yard, causing the sidewalk to be higher than the surrounding ground. Wouldn't you want the sidewalk higher? I honestly don't know. We don't even have sidewalks in my neighborhood. I'm not sure I've ever lived anywhere where there were sidewalks.
In any case, it's his property flooding! It's his property getting water damage! Is the city of Ozark going to come over here if my basement floods after a big rain and fix it? I highly doubt it. Oh, by the way, my basement is dry as a bone. If it wasn't, I'd fix it. OK well I wouldn't but I would pay someone who knows what they are doing to do it.
Two of the aldermen, one from Ward III and one from Ward I, both mentioned the idea of personal responsibility and gave examples of what they had themselves done to deal with stormwater problems. Ward III even went so far as to ask why Ozark taxpayers should have to pay for this. The Mayor also cited personal responsibility.
However, in the end, they decided to take it under advisement and come to a decision at the next meeting. I really hope they stick to their guns. To me it sets a dangerous precedent to for the city to go around paying for stormwater problems, especially when a landowner hasn't even made an effort to fix the part of the problem all agree is his responsibility.
I've lived here for eight years and this was my first Board of Aldermen's meeting. It won't be my last. I'm awake. I'm paying attention. And I'm not going away.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Introduction
A year ago at this time, I was an unemployed RN fighting breast cancer. I was recovering from surgery, smack in the middle of chemo. Definitely one of the low points of my life. Today, I'm a year older and trying to become somewhat wiser.
In the fall of 2010, my children's school district decided to implement International Baccalaureate as an educational opportunity for juniors and seniors. Having been somewhat of an overachiever in high school myself, I was excited about the prospect of bringing such a prestigious program to our school. And we were in luck, because my son's class would be the first class to be able to participate.
However, our school board seemed like they were being a little sneaky in implementing the program, since it was presented, with no opportunity for public input, and then voted on in the same meeting. With other new programs in the past, usually the proposal was presented and then voted upon at the next meeting, with time for people to comment if they signed up to be on the agenda to speak either for or against the proposal. So when our school board pushed it through, if you will, there was some understandable public backlash.
A high school teacher got very involved with trying to get the word out that maybe this program was not the best choice for our school. He started a local campaign to question IB. Of course, he and the public were informed that it was a done deal; they had already started the application process and allocated the funds to support it. It kept coming up though, and the school board invited a prominent physician from the big city who had previously served on the big city school board where one of the schools had had IB for about twenty years. The physician's son, now an attorney in the prosecutor's office, had graduated from the program. They both spoke at length about how wonderful the program was and how it was so beneficial to his education. He even said IB was harder than law school.
Wow. That's hard. I assume, since I've never been to law school. Maybe I would have been better prepared for college had I taken such rigorous coursework in high school. Maybe my son would get into a better school or even do better in college if he got an IB diploma. I was sold.
But some nagging doubts kept popping up. It always bothers me when an organization pushes something through, and this certainly concerned me since they were discussing decreased state funding and impending budget cuts in our schools. With all these cuts, it seemed a little fishy that they wanted to add another program, one that realistically would only benefit a few students. So I started doing some research and I found that the IB program seemed to be deeply ingrained in United Nations values. In fact, UNESCO did indeed initially fund the program until 1976 (along with the 20th Century Fund and the Ford Foundation). Now schools with IB pay a subscription fee to use the program.
I personally believe the UN wants to make the standard of living in every country the same, not by raising Third World nations up, but by bringing developed nations down. If you read Agenda 21 on the UN's own website, they spell it out quite plainly that "the developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development," (Agenda 21, Preamble, paragraph 1.4). In other words, income redistribution. I hate poverty as much as the next guy, but I don't think I should have to become poor so that someone else can be less poor.
In any case, it looks like this wonderful educational "programme" may only serve to brainwash my children in globalism and undermine their belief in American exceptionalism. It seems that liberal ideas work their way into the middle of the country by saturating the East and West Coasts first and honestly, IB is just one more way to achieve the goal of creating global citizens.
America didn't get to be the best country in the world, the nation where people everywhere aspire to go, the leader in technology and innovation and the world's only superpower by allowing other nations to decide what we need to do. We started out as a colony, fought the tyranny of King George, revolted and developed our own unique government and when it wasn't working, reconvened to form "a more perfect Union." Our forefathers worked and fought and bled and died to give us the freedom most of us take for granted. They came up with a simple, concise document, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a manual to use it, the Federalist papers. Other nations study these documents and other revolutionaries have looked to our example when throwing off tyranny themselves.
Call it what you will, but Providence or God or the Man Upstairs allowed the pieces to come together and through the hard work and perseverance of patriots the United States of America came about. But for most of the past sixty years, we have allowed globalists to slowly erode our sovereignty, passing resolutions and ratifying treaties that serve to benefit other nations while putting the US at a distinct disadvantage.
Over the past year, as I've learned more about IB and watched how our nation has spiraled out of control, with soaring unemployment, rising fuel and utility prices, and dwindling economic opportunities, I've felt compelled to get involved. To do something. To turn off stupid reality TV and start paying more attention to politics and public policy. A few months ago I happened to see a hand painted sign giving information and directions to a meeting about property rights. I was intrigued. Then I ate breakfast at my favorite little cafe here in town and saw a postcard laying on the counter when I went to pay that was talking about this same meeting. Then I drove down the road and saw another sign. And I decided maybe all these were coming together to give ME a sign, that I should go check it out.
At first I wasn't sure what to think...they were talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with me. I live in town, I'm not a farmer, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. But I listened, I took notes, I wrote down the names of websites, books and radio shows. I went home and Googled some of the topics discussed and I read over the pages and pages of information they had at the meeting.
Initially some of it seemed a little nutty...but when you meet real, live, normal people who are personally being harassed by the USDA and fined thousands of dollars (which has since turned into millions) for not having a license to sell rabbits WHEN THEY HAD BEEN TOLD BY THE USDA THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE, you start to realize that something is seriously wrong with this system. Then I started digging in to Agenda 21. I've begun looking into the voting records of my representatives, both at the state and national level. I'm paying attention to what the county commission is and is not doing.
And I'm getting involved. Right now our group is pretty loosely organized. We've got people who are passionate about many different issues and we have lots of ideas of where things are headed and what we need to do to rectify the situation. We each have our own perspective and skill set to bring to the table and I believe we are starting to gel into a group that will bring about powerful changes not only to our county, but to our state and our nation as well.
I've been paying attention to politics since Mondale ran against Reagan in 1984 (my daddy was a southern Democrat, but he's since reformed). I don't think I've ever seen an election where the candidates were in such a spotlight this early in the game. The debates and the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street seem to be waking up the sleeping giant, the American people. This is good, this is progress. It's about time!
OK back to IB. I've now decided I will leave it up to my son whether he wants to participate in the program, and at this point I believe he's leaning toward not. I will support his decision either way and he still has plenty of time to change his mind. But all this IB talk has made me realize I need to pay attention to what they are learning in school. I want my kids to learn about history and economics the same way I did, within the framework that our system, a republic and capitalism, are the best in the world. I don't like the idea of teaching our kids that the US is an evil bully. I want them believing we are the best country in the world, not because someone told them but because they've studied our history in light of other countries' histories and our economic system in light of other systems. I want them to learn about the multiple failures of socialism and communism and the successes and downfalls of the Greeks and the Romans. I want them to see where we have been and where we are headed. And I want them to be optimistic about the future. I want them to know they can make a difference.
And so that's why I'm here, why I started this new blog that better reflects what's going on with my life right now. I will still discuss the cancer stuff as it comes up on my other blog, but I'm not sure it's the right place to discuss political strategy and bureaucratic nightmares.
In the fall of 2010, my children's school district decided to implement International Baccalaureate as an educational opportunity for juniors and seniors. Having been somewhat of an overachiever in high school myself, I was excited about the prospect of bringing such a prestigious program to our school. And we were in luck, because my son's class would be the first class to be able to participate.
However, our school board seemed like they were being a little sneaky in implementing the program, since it was presented, with no opportunity for public input, and then voted on in the same meeting. With other new programs in the past, usually the proposal was presented and then voted upon at the next meeting, with time for people to comment if they signed up to be on the agenda to speak either for or against the proposal. So when our school board pushed it through, if you will, there was some understandable public backlash.
A high school teacher got very involved with trying to get the word out that maybe this program was not the best choice for our school. He started a local campaign to question IB. Of course, he and the public were informed that it was a done deal; they had already started the application process and allocated the funds to support it. It kept coming up though, and the school board invited a prominent physician from the big city who had previously served on the big city school board where one of the schools had had IB for about twenty years. The physician's son, now an attorney in the prosecutor's office, had graduated from the program. They both spoke at length about how wonderful the program was and how it was so beneficial to his education. He even said IB was harder than law school.
Wow. That's hard. I assume, since I've never been to law school. Maybe I would have been better prepared for college had I taken such rigorous coursework in high school. Maybe my son would get into a better school or even do better in college if he got an IB diploma. I was sold.
But some nagging doubts kept popping up. It always bothers me when an organization pushes something through, and this certainly concerned me since they were discussing decreased state funding and impending budget cuts in our schools. With all these cuts, it seemed a little fishy that they wanted to add another program, one that realistically would only benefit a few students. So I started doing some research and I found that the IB program seemed to be deeply ingrained in United Nations values. In fact, UNESCO did indeed initially fund the program until 1976 (along with the 20th Century Fund and the Ford Foundation). Now schools with IB pay a subscription fee to use the program.
I personally believe the UN wants to make the standard of living in every country the same, not by raising Third World nations up, but by bringing developed nations down. If you read Agenda 21 on the UN's own website, they spell it out quite plainly that "the developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development," (Agenda 21, Preamble, paragraph 1.4). In other words, income redistribution. I hate poverty as much as the next guy, but I don't think I should have to become poor so that someone else can be less poor.
In any case, it looks like this wonderful educational "programme" may only serve to brainwash my children in globalism and undermine their belief in American exceptionalism. It seems that liberal ideas work their way into the middle of the country by saturating the East and West Coasts first and honestly, IB is just one more way to achieve the goal of creating global citizens.
America didn't get to be the best country in the world, the nation where people everywhere aspire to go, the leader in technology and innovation and the world's only superpower by allowing other nations to decide what we need to do. We started out as a colony, fought the tyranny of King George, revolted and developed our own unique government and when it wasn't working, reconvened to form "a more perfect Union." Our forefathers worked and fought and bled and died to give us the freedom most of us take for granted. They came up with a simple, concise document, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a manual to use it, the Federalist papers. Other nations study these documents and other revolutionaries have looked to our example when throwing off tyranny themselves.
Call it what you will, but Providence or God or the Man Upstairs allowed the pieces to come together and through the hard work and perseverance of patriots the United States of America came about. But for most of the past sixty years, we have allowed globalists to slowly erode our sovereignty, passing resolutions and ratifying treaties that serve to benefit other nations while putting the US at a distinct disadvantage.
Over the past year, as I've learned more about IB and watched how our nation has spiraled out of control, with soaring unemployment, rising fuel and utility prices, and dwindling economic opportunities, I've felt compelled to get involved. To do something. To turn off stupid reality TV and start paying more attention to politics and public policy. A few months ago I happened to see a hand painted sign giving information and directions to a meeting about property rights. I was intrigued. Then I ate breakfast at my favorite little cafe here in town and saw a postcard laying on the counter when I went to pay that was talking about this same meeting. Then I drove down the road and saw another sign. And I decided maybe all these were coming together to give ME a sign, that I should go check it out.
At first I wasn't sure what to think...they were talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with me. I live in town, I'm not a farmer, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. But I listened, I took notes, I wrote down the names of websites, books and radio shows. I went home and Googled some of the topics discussed and I read over the pages and pages of information they had at the meeting.
Initially some of it seemed a little nutty...but when you meet real, live, normal people who are personally being harassed by the USDA and fined thousands of dollars (which has since turned into millions) for not having a license to sell rabbits WHEN THEY HAD BEEN TOLD BY THE USDA THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE, you start to realize that something is seriously wrong with this system. Then I started digging in to Agenda 21. I've begun looking into the voting records of my representatives, both at the state and national level. I'm paying attention to what the county commission is and is not doing.
And I'm getting involved. Right now our group is pretty loosely organized. We've got people who are passionate about many different issues and we have lots of ideas of where things are headed and what we need to do to rectify the situation. We each have our own perspective and skill set to bring to the table and I believe we are starting to gel into a group that will bring about powerful changes not only to our county, but to our state and our nation as well.
I've been paying attention to politics since Mondale ran against Reagan in 1984 (my daddy was a southern Democrat, but he's since reformed). I don't think I've ever seen an election where the candidates were in such a spotlight this early in the game. The debates and the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street seem to be waking up the sleeping giant, the American people. This is good, this is progress. It's about time!
OK back to IB. I've now decided I will leave it up to my son whether he wants to participate in the program, and at this point I believe he's leaning toward not. I will support his decision either way and he still has plenty of time to change his mind. But all this IB talk has made me realize I need to pay attention to what they are learning in school. I want my kids to learn about history and economics the same way I did, within the framework that our system, a republic and capitalism, are the best in the world. I don't like the idea of teaching our kids that the US is an evil bully. I want them believing we are the best country in the world, not because someone told them but because they've studied our history in light of other countries' histories and our economic system in light of other systems. I want them to learn about the multiple failures of socialism and communism and the successes and downfalls of the Greeks and the Romans. I want them to see where we have been and where we are headed. And I want them to be optimistic about the future. I want them to know they can make a difference.
And so that's why I'm here, why I started this new blog that better reflects what's going on with my life right now. I will still discuss the cancer stuff as it comes up on my other blog, but I'm not sure it's the right place to discuss political strategy and bureaucratic nightmares.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Agenda 21, or I'm madder than hell and I ain't gonna take it no more (part 1)
Over the past year, in addition to dealing with fun stuff like unemployment and breast cancer, I've received a crash course in the hidden agenda of the United Nations, specifically Agenda 21.
Now if you Google “Agenda 21,” the first website that comes up is the UN page describing Agenda 21. And if you click through, you can link to read the entire document. It's long, boring and uses terms like “inter alia” and “sustainable development.” And it's all right there on their website, so it's not a “hidden” agenda at all. Right?
Wrong.
The part that's hidden in fancy catchphrases that sound reasonable, such as “sustainable development,” is the erosion of property rights and taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” so that everyone will be equal. I'm all for helping the poor. I know charitable contributions are vital to the survival of many organizations that do legitimate good works to help those in need. For several years we gave money to Heifer Project International yearly because we believe it's a good program. They help people by giving them animals so they can raise them for food, eggs and milk. The recipients of the animals are then required to pass on an offspring of their animals so others can benefit. In other words, pay it forward.
I like that. God helps those who help themselves. The Heifer Project people also teach them how to manage the land and take care of the animals to make them more environmentally conscious. That's good too. I like the idea of ending hunger, empowering people and saving the world all at the same time.
And then they went and did it. Busted out that “sustainable development” term. It sounds like a good idea, making sure we don't run out of natural resources, making sure the world is still around and usable for our children and grandchildren. It SOUNDS good, but if you dig a little deeper, you find that these schemes serve to limit what we can do with our own private property.
If the best practices of raising livestock and crops are known, and they are not cost prohibitive, most landowners are going to do the right thing. If I have a family farm I plan to pass on to my children, I want it to be usable. I want my children and their children to be able to get as much use as possible out of it. I don't want to pass on a worthless piece of land to them.
But the UN thinks otherwise.
“The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.” (Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5)
In layman's terms, they want to make it easier to make sure land is used with the most sustainable benefits. What's wrong with that? Say you own 1000 acres. In your area, you need roughly one acre per head and you want to raise 1000 head of cattle. Or you could raise corn and yield 160 bushels per acre. Shouldn't you be able to decide what you'd like to raise? What works for your family and your bottom line? Maybe you'd make more money from one but your family has raised the other for four generations?
Enter “sustainable development.” Experts in the Department of Agriculture have determined that your land is best suited to raising corn, and more people can be fed with that corn. So under Agenda 21, they can come in and tell you that you must raise corn. Think it won't happen? I mean, after all, the paragraph quoted mentions “private property rights...local communities and...other issues.” However, look what else was mentioned: the rights of indigenous people (of which 94% of the world's population is NOT), protected areas (government controlled lands, such as national parks, state forests, the city park and the latest trickeration, national heritage areas) and women in agriculture. So if you are say, a white (or black or Hispanic or Asian) male in Missouri, you may not have any property rights if this goes through.
But we live in the good ol' US of A! This can't happen here! Wrong...it already is. Review current planning and zoning policies and practices in your area. Note the mention of sustainable development or sustainablity. It's the latest catchphrase. Sadly, many of the county commissioners, city councilmen, state senators and Congressmen who vote for sustainability don't really even know what it means. But once the terms have worked their way into law, you can bet the people who stand to benefit from the policy change will be first in line to let us know exactly what it means. Look out for organizations such as PETA and the HSUS and environmental wackos who would like nothing more than to send us back to the 19th century. Maybe throw a little Communism in there...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
“All countries should, as appropriate and in accordance with national plans, objectives and priorities: Promote the use of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found in most large cities, while at the same time promoting the development of skills in the construction sector” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.69e)
“Promoting efficient and environmentally sound urban transport systems in all countries should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand; adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport in countries, as appropriate; encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.52a-c)
We can all ride our bicycles or the train from our apartments to our inefficient, green jobs (such as swinging a hammer to build a house instead of using a nail gun) so that everyone has a job and no one has any more than anyone else. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
Communist Russia, maybe??
Certainly not the United States of America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Not the country that was torn apart by the War Between the States but came back together and within 50 years was a superpower. Not the nation that survived two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the Civil Rights Movement. Not the sovereignty that rose from the ashes of the terrorism of September 11, 2001.
Not my country.
Now if you Google “Agenda 21,” the first website that comes up is the UN page describing Agenda 21. And if you click through, you can link to read the entire document. It's long, boring and uses terms like “inter alia” and “sustainable development.” And it's all right there on their website, so it's not a “hidden” agenda at all. Right?
Wrong.
The part that's hidden in fancy catchphrases that sound reasonable, such as “sustainable development,” is the erosion of property rights and taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” so that everyone will be equal. I'm all for helping the poor. I know charitable contributions are vital to the survival of many organizations that do legitimate good works to help those in need. For several years we gave money to Heifer Project International yearly because we believe it's a good program. They help people by giving them animals so they can raise them for food, eggs and milk. The recipients of the animals are then required to pass on an offspring of their animals so others can benefit. In other words, pay it forward.
I like that. God helps those who help themselves. The Heifer Project people also teach them how to manage the land and take care of the animals to make them more environmentally conscious. That's good too. I like the idea of ending hunger, empowering people and saving the world all at the same time.
And then they went and did it. Busted out that “sustainable development” term. It sounds like a good idea, making sure we don't run out of natural resources, making sure the world is still around and usable for our children and grandchildren. It SOUNDS good, but if you dig a little deeper, you find that these schemes serve to limit what we can do with our own private property.
If the best practices of raising livestock and crops are known, and they are not cost prohibitive, most landowners are going to do the right thing. If I have a family farm I plan to pass on to my children, I want it to be usable. I want my children and their children to be able to get as much use as possible out of it. I don't want to pass on a worthless piece of land to them.
But the UN thinks otherwise.
“The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.” (Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5)
In layman's terms, they want to make it easier to make sure land is used with the most sustainable benefits. What's wrong with that? Say you own 1000 acres. In your area, you need roughly one acre per head and you want to raise 1000 head of cattle. Or you could raise corn and yield 160 bushels per acre. Shouldn't you be able to decide what you'd like to raise? What works for your family and your bottom line? Maybe you'd make more money from one but your family has raised the other for four generations?
Enter “sustainable development.” Experts in the Department of Agriculture have determined that your land is best suited to raising corn, and more people can be fed with that corn. So under Agenda 21, they can come in and tell you that you must raise corn. Think it won't happen? I mean, after all, the paragraph quoted mentions “private property rights...local communities and...other issues.” However, look what else was mentioned: the rights of indigenous people (of which 94% of the world's population is NOT), protected areas (government controlled lands, such as national parks, state forests, the city park and the latest trickeration, national heritage areas) and women in agriculture. So if you are say, a white (or black or Hispanic or Asian) male in Missouri, you may not have any property rights if this goes through.
But we live in the good ol' US of A! This can't happen here! Wrong...it already is. Review current planning and zoning policies and practices in your area. Note the mention of sustainable development or sustainablity. It's the latest catchphrase. Sadly, many of the county commissioners, city councilmen, state senators and Congressmen who vote for sustainability don't really even know what it means. But once the terms have worked their way into law, you can bet the people who stand to benefit from the policy change will be first in line to let us know exactly what it means. Look out for organizations such as PETA and the HSUS and environmental wackos who would like nothing more than to send us back to the 19th century. Maybe throw a little Communism in there...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
“All countries should, as appropriate and in accordance with national plans, objectives and priorities: Promote the use of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found in most large cities, while at the same time promoting the development of skills in the construction sector” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.69e)
“Promoting efficient and environmentally sound urban transport systems in all countries should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand; adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport in countries, as appropriate; encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.52a-c)
We can all ride our bicycles or the train from our apartments to our inefficient, green jobs (such as swinging a hammer to build a house instead of using a nail gun) so that everyone has a job and no one has any more than anyone else. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
Communist Russia, maybe??
Certainly not the United States of America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Not the country that was torn apart by the War Between the States but came back together and within 50 years was a superpower. Not the nation that survived two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the Civil Rights Movement. Not the sovereignty that rose from the ashes of the terrorism of September 11, 2001.
Not my country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)