And, no, it’s not about the debt ceiling crisis which I’m totally over thinking about right this moment.
This is about Agenda 21.
This video really sums it up quite nicely, actually:
It’s moments like this in our history where I hope that conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats will come together and decide, “No. America will not, can not, and does not plan to submit to this tyrrany.”
This is the kind of stupidity that reaches across “the aisles” as both Dems and Repubs have advanced this agenda.
One of the things that Obama has signed in to law recently which is in line with the idea of Agenda 21.
Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
Why does the Federal Government have an “important role to play” in what kind of outdoor recreational activities we partake in? Why does the Federal Government have a role in the rural areas?
Now, one of the things that I read over the weekend was that this Agenda will make it to where, if you own a family-run farm, you will have to get a CDL permit to drive your tractor, your other farming equipment, etc. This will destroy small farms.
Why? Because there are SO many reasons why people can’t get CDLs, it’s incredible. Also, the training and paperwork take a long time to fill out (not to mention the money involved) and our farmers need to be doing things like, oh, I dunno, farming (perhaps?) rather than filling out useless, over-regulated, large-Government-mandated paperwork.
Look, this really bothers me. If you watch the video above, you’ll see a map of the areas where humans will “be allowed” to live if this whole thing gets enacted (the whole Agenda 21, not Obama’s Executive Order, which also bothers me, and not because it’s from Obama but because of the nature of it) and you’ll notice that there aren’t enough black dots to sustain the amount of people we have now.
There are NO black dots in Wyoming. I live in Wyoming. What am I supposed to do?
You know what this makes me think of? The Hunger Games. Only scarier.
I dunno what we’re supposed to do. I dunno what we’re supposed to think of it. I don’t even know why I’m putting this out there, other than, just, I’m so damn tired of the over-mandated, freedom-taking, bureaucracies that I’m losing my mind.
Anyways, I think that as One Nation, we can come together and say, “No. We like our Small, Family Owned Farms, leave. them. alone.”
Because, I don’t know about you, but I love going to the farmer’s market on the weekends and seeing all the beautiful produce. And I know that this whole Agenda 21 thing, will destroy that. And it pisses me off.
I would say call your congressman, but they are so clueless, I don’t think it would matter anymore.
Apathy, it’s the new Patriotic.
Back to Happy Sunshine Land tomorrow, where I will only talk about crazy things my kids do, I hope.
*Update: I received a comment that seems to say that I didn’t make myself clear enough and didn’t provide links and stuff like that. First of all, this was more of a general RANT and not so much an expose on Government interference in everyday people’s lives, it’s more of a “I’m pissed off, so I’m gonna rant for a moment”. Secondly, I DID, in fact, provide ample linkage. At the top there, where it says, “This is about Agenda 21.” if you click on “Agenda 21” — it takes you to the document on the UN website. Also, I provided three more links AND a youtube video. I think I cited the sources. Now, as the CDL permit to drive tractors, I will now address that more thoroughly…..*
Here is the link for the information on what the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin is proposing. I’m suspecting that this administration is the father of the state DOT(s). I’m not sure.
Here are some quotes from this proposal:
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399) include several exceptions for agricultural operations. The FMCSA recently received inquiries about the applicability of these exceptions. As a result, the Agency has identified three issues that could benefit from clarification. First, how does one distinguish between intra- and interstate commerce when a CMV is operated within the boundaries of a single State? Second, should the Agency distinguish between indirect and direct compensation in deciding whether a farm vehicle driver is eligible for the exception to the CDL requirements in 49 CFR 383.3(d)(1)? Third, should implements of husbandry and other farm equipment be considered CMVs?
and, specifically, the part I was talking about….
Under the Agency’s CDL regulations, persons who operate a CMV, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, in interstate or intrastate commerce are required to have a CDL. However, a limited exception is provided for drivers of farm vehicles (49 CFR 383.3(d)(1)). A State may, at its discretion, exempt drivers of farm vehicles that are:Show citation box
(1) Controlled and operated by a farmer, including operation by employees or family members;Show citation box
(2) Used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery or farm supplies to or from a farm;Show citation box
(3) Not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; andShow citation box
(4) Used within 241 kilometers (150 miles) of the farmer’s farm.Show citation box
The exception is limited to the driver’s home State unless there is a reciprocity agreement with adjoining States.Show citation box
It has come to FMCSA’s attention that States may be taking varied approaches in interpreting the meaning of “common or contract motor carrier” as it relates to farm vehicle drivers operating under a crop share agreement and, as a result, may be applying the CDL exception inconsistently.Show citation box
As background, it is the Agency’s understanding that in a crop share arrangement, land owners generally rent out or lease their farm land to a tenant. The tenant agrees to pay the landlord a share of the crops grown on the leased lands as rent. This rent, i.e., a portion of the crops, may be paid in a series of installment payments. The parties agree that each will provide certain items of equipment, materials, and labor, and pay a share of the expenses to run the farming operations. The tenant agrees to use the land for agricultural purposes only, and to farm the land in accordance with proper farming practices. The parties will share in the decision making and management of the farming operations to the extent set out in the lease. The landlord has a lien on the crops as security for the rent payable under the lease. In most cases, it appears that the share cropper transports the landlord’s portion of the crops to market in his or her own CMV and is indirectly and implicitly compensated for this service in the form of a reduction in the landlord’s share in the crops produced.Show citation box
The FMCSA believes that the reference to “operations of a common or contract carrier” in the CDL exception (49 CFR 383.3(d)(1)(iii)) is clear. Given the information FMCSA has received about the varied interpretations of this phrase as it relates to crop share arrangements, however, it acknowledges that there may be uncertainty about how the phrase applies in the context of a crop share arrangement.
Once again, that link before all the block quotes is where you will find the information more fully.
Here’s a Waco, TX News Report about this:
Farm Bureau holds that farm implements should not be reclassified as CMVs.
Gefvert noted that current federal policy allows individual states to exempt farmers from CDL requirements. Farm Bureau maintains that this authority should be retained by individual states.
“States are more knowledgeable about their individualized agricultural and transportation related issues, as well as the need for regulatory oversight and implementation within their specified state,” wrote Gefvert.
Another DOT proposal would classify all agricultural commodities delivered to a processor as interstate commerce because of the potential for the crop to eventually leave the state. Farm Bureau opposes this change because the transaction between the farmer and the processor (located in the same state) is not an interstate transaction, nor should it be considered one due to the possibility for that crop to eventually be sold elsewhere by the processor.
Once again, this is *Un*Freaking*Believable* to me.
Here’s a link to another article written by Anne S. Farro. She also talks about the legislation.
These stories do tie in to Agenda 21, but only in a small way. Like I said, it was mostly a rant about the big-ness of government, but thank you, commenter, for asking me to prove my case! I hope you enjoy!