Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Property Rights and Election Year Politics by Karen Budd-Falen A Memorandum from 2012


I have been swamped this summer but have much to share and will catch up by first sharing an email from Karen Budd-Falen friend and attorney from Wyoming who has been instrumental in disclosing extremist's deception in EAJA.  She is forever fighting for our rights and I hang on every word she says because she is walking the walk and has been victorious in her battles.



Memorandum
To: Interested Parties
From: Karen Budd-Falen
Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC
Date: August 7, 2012

Since election season is in full swing, I wanted to pass along some things to think about. 
Feel free to distribute and publish as you see fit. 

Property Rights and Election Year Politics 
• “No other rights are safe where 
property is not safe.” Daniel 
Webster (1782 - 1852). 
• “Among the natural rights of the 
colonists are these: First a right to 
life, secondly to liberty, and 
thirdly to property; together with 
the right to defend them in the 
best manner they can.” Samuel 
Adams (1722 - 1803). 
• “The Right of property is the 
guardian of every other Right, 
and to deprive the people of this, 
is in fact to deprive them of their 
Liberty.” American diplomat 
Arthur Lee (1740 - 1792). 
In this election year, it is critical to ask 
what your current elected 
representatives – or those who want to 
be your elected representatives – believe 
when it comes to private property and 
private property rights. 
Private property is all tangible and 
intangible things owned by individuals 
or organizations over which their 
owners have legal rights, such as land, 
buildings, money, copyrights, patents, 
etc. Unless the mandates of the Fifth 
Amendment are met, private property 
can be transferred only with its owner's 
agreement. Property can include every 
valuable right that can be owned, has an 
exchangeable value, or adds to one’s 
wealth or estate. Property describes a 
person’s exclusive right to possess, use, 
and dispose of something. It has been 
said that the rights to the ownership and 
use of property and property rights is a 
basic element of the capitalist system, 
and is even the basis for the rights 
guaranteed in the First Amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution. “In its larger and 

juster meaning, [property] embraces 
every thing to which a man may attach a 
value and have a right; and which leaves 
to every one else the like advantage. In 
the former sense, a man’s land, or 
merchandise, or money is called his 
property. In the latter sense, a man has a 
property in his opinions and the free 
communication of them. He has a 
property of peculiar value in his 
religious opinions, and in the profession 
and practice dictated by them.” James 
Madison (1751-1836), author of the First 
Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. 
Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution, private property cannot be 
taken unless it is for a public purpose, 
without due process and just 
compensation. The Fifth Amendment 
was written to protect individuals 
against abuse of government authority 
by requiring due process (i.e. a legal 
procedure). The Fifth Amendment’s 
guarantees stem from English common 
law which traces back to Magna Carta of 
1215. For example, the Fifth 
Amendment protects individuals from 
criminal double jeopardy and self 
incrimination; it also protects property 
from being taken unless there is a 
“public purpose,” without due process 
and just compensation. 
Although often overlooked, in this 
election year, we the people should focus 
our thoughts on the Fifth Amendment’s 
requirement that property cannot be 
taken unless there is a public purpose. 
The courts have allowed legislative 
bodies, such as a city council, county 
commission or the state legislature to 
determine what is in the public purpose. 
The determination of a “public purpose” 
by your federal, state and local elected 
officials extends to determining if 
eminent domain will be granted to 
companies for rights-of-ways, limiting 
land use through restrictive zoning 
decisions and taking private properties 
“for a higher and better use.” 
In this election year, it is up to you to 
determine how far your elected officials 
go in either eliminating or defending all 
forms of private property. As John 
Locke (1632 - 1704) stated, “[t]he great 
chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into 
Commonwealths, and putting 
themselves under Government, is the 
Preservation of their Property. . . . 
Whenever the legislators endeavor to 
take away and destroy the property of 
the people, or to reduce them to slavery 
under arbitrary power, they put 
themselves into a state of war with the 
people . . . .” 
There is nothing your elected officials 
have adopted in the past that cannot be 
changed by a new elected body with the 
will to do so. So I would encourage you 
to ask these questions of yourself and 
your elected officials: 
• How important is the guarantee 
of the ownership and use of 
private property and property 
rights? 
• Do you have elected officials who 
listen to the citizens, treat them 
with respect and represent the 
people in the City, County, State 
or Country or do they merely 
represent the county employees 
who want to retain power to 
themselves?

As stated by Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 
1826), “All tyranny needs to gain a 
foothold is for people of good conscience 
to remain silent.” And while not 
necessarily a Constitutional scholar, a 
famous singer/songwriter once stated, 
“[g]et up, stand up, stand up for your 
rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up 
the fight.” Bob Marley (1945 - 1981).


Monday, April 9, 2012

Who Controls Your Family's Future Food Choices?

To chime in on Trent Loos' April 3, 2012 Grandin article...Our family realized early on that though many of her ideas have proven to be beneficial for our industry, her stance on animal welfare could possibly destroy our animal ag industries.  We spoke with our own industry and voiced our concerns. As a grassroots producer here are some things I’d like to point out:
1.     Some fundamental animal activists facts must be understood.
a.      Animal activists don’t want to compromise; they want to eliminate animal protein from our diets.  They want to destroy our ability to produce any animal protein. If their efforts succeed we will not be able to afford to purchase animal protein.
b.     They have used and will continue to use all avenues to accomplish this.  HSUS’100 Point Change Agenda is clear about the means, and they’ve accomplished many on their list.  
c.      They have many deceptive faces as seen in our friend and supporter Animal Ag Alliance's Animal Activist’s Map. 
d.     The victories they’ve had are making it impossible for grassroots animal ag producers to stay in business.  Prop 2, Prop B, Horse Slaughter…yes the outcome of all of these affect the other.  The change in regulations within each industry is the vision they seek for all animal ag...destroy those industries and their ability to produce animal protein.  
2.     Decisions are creating unintended (or intended?) consequences.
a.      Decisions being made by industry affiliate leaders, ag universities, staff, animal scientists, third party auditors and others who have decided to collaborate with animal activists, are creating circumstances detrimental to grassroot’s ability to produce affordable animal protein for our world’s families to consume.
b.     These decisions have created a conduit for grassroot’s destruction, taking with it our world’s animal protein source.  These individuals either realize exactly who they’re dealing with and perhaps may ultimately be benefiting from the collaborations, or they’re out of touch and ignorant about the motives of extreme animal activist and their ultimate goal: to completely eliminate animal protein consumption.
c.       If animal ag industry leaders, decision makers and others have chosen to align themselves with these extreme animal right’s activist they need to be questioned about their motives. 
d.      Ask yourself...do these leader’s actions align with their industry’s goals and missions?  If not, ask questions.  What are the motives behind aligning themselves with these extreme animal activists/environmentalists...yes environmentalists because it's all connected?  The answer to those questions will either reveal another agenda that supports animal activists or insufficient knowledge about the enemy.  When decisions, by individuals who are out of touch with the actual process of raising protein animals for consumption, begin to debilitate and destroy the ability to provide the protein sources God intended for us to consume, grassroots must step up and say something.
3.     Education is the key to understanding animal activist’s motives.  
a.      The best resource available is Animal Ag Alliance who has been in the business of defending animal ag against animal activists for over 30 years. 
b.     Every industry affiliate leader and decision maker should be attending the Animal Ag Alliance Stakeholder Summit coming up the first of May. If our animal ag groups are refusing to join forces with Animal Ag Alliance, more questions need answers.  Why would any animal ag industry group refuse to hold in high regard this extremely knowledgeable resource?
c.       If our industry’s leaders, refuse to educate themselves and continue to form alliances with the enemy then new leadership should be put in place.  If animal ag scientists join forces with the enemy, their thoughts, attitudes and suggestions should be questioned.
d.     If ag publication’s articles and animal ag journalist’s thoughts and suggestions align with the enemy, grassroots producers must question those motives as well.

These articles are great examples of what is happening to grassroots producers and their ability to economically provide animal protein to a growing population.  
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19713/

This article explains a program the beef industry must question the motives of
Is there anymore evidence needed to prove the point that the current path we’re on will take away any chance our children and grandchildren have, of not only being able to purchase and raise animals, but afford to purchase and consume animal protein? 

The saying, “If you don’t take an interest in politics, politics will take an interest in you” might go something like this for animal ag producers: “If grassroots producers don’t take an interest in the decisions being implemented on their behalf, animal activists and their collaborators will take a destructive interest in them.”
We have sustainable agriculture now and have had for centuries.  If these groups get their way animal agriculture will not be able to sustain itself; we’ll be regulated out of business.