An Open Letter to the NAIS Opposition Community: A Sad Story of Concealed Interests, but with a Hopeful Ending
By Mary Zanoni Does a Secret Pro-Corporate Agenda Intend to Co-opt the Anti-NAIS Movement?
Who Are the Real "Leaders" Behind Liberty Ark/FARFA?
A Sad Story of Concealed Interests; but With a Hopeful Ending
Many of us who are most strongly opposed to NAIS have noticed that Liberty
Ark/FARFA and their de facto leaders, Henry Lamb, Judith McGeary, and Karin
Bergener, have taken every opportunity: (1) to promote the type of
"voluntary" system specified in the NAIS User Guide, which, as we know too
well, inevitably will lead to a mandatory system; and (2) to quiet and blunt
the NAIS opposition by touting the supposed "importance" of insignificant
minor "victories" against NAIS, many of which are not "victories" at all,
but just steps that bring us closer to NAIS.
Most in the antiNAIS community probably do not understand the concealed
connections and actions of the main people working on behalf of Liberty
Ark/FARFA. Karin Bergener of Liberty Ark works for a company called SAIC
(Science Applications International Corporation). SAIC is a prominent
federal government contractor, the developer of the national DNA database
and the gun-purchase background-check database. As described on its
website, All this is not to say that these people may not "oppose" NAIS on some level
and for some motives; the question is the degree of their opposition, and
the authenticity of their motives. NAIS is the very model of how an
unresponsive Executive Branch agency can cooperate with a globalist
industrial agriculture and a technocratic corporate elite to force an
undesired program upon an unwilling populace. So ask yourself whether
people aligned with those selfsame industrial/corporate interests are likely
to be legitimate opponents of NAIS.
McGeary Supports "Voluntary" Government-Imposed NAIS
Judith McGeary of FARFA and Liberty Ark has made frequent on-the-record
statements in support of a "voluntary" government-run NAIS. She testified
on September 6, 2006 before the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) that
FARFA does not oppose a "voluntary" NAIS program
(http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/793/minutes/html/C5852006090610001.H).
In written testimony to a Texas Senate Subcommittee, McGeary stated,
in response to a question concerning the viability of a "voluntary" Texas
NAIS pending the implementation of a national NAIS, "FARFA does not oppose a
voluntary state program" (Texas Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Affairs, and Coastal Resources, September 6, 2006). An Austin Chronicle
article quoted McGeary as willing to settle for a "compromise" that would
create a government-imposed "voluntary" NAIS: "McGeary . . . in
negotiations with the TAHC [regarding NAIS] hopes to reach a compromise
wherein small operations can comply voluntarily or be exempted altogether"
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A344517).
Of course, we in the NAIS opposition community know all too well from the
USDA's User Guide for NAIS, and from the actions of various states in
forcing farmers into NAIS without their knowledge or consent in the guise of
a "voluntary" program, that a "voluntary" NAIS cannot be tolerated, and is
not consistent with the positions of groups completely opposed to NAIS, such
as the Northeast Organic Farming Association – Massachusetts, Rural Vermont,
or the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.
McGeary and the Massachusetts Coordinator of Liberty Ark Worked Diligently
to Weaken State Legislation
In Massachusetts, Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts
(NOFA/Mass) antiNAIS activists Ben Grosscup and Jack Kittredge were just on
the verge of approaching their legislators with antiNAIS legislation to bar
completely the Massachusetts premises ID program and allow Massachusetts
farmers who had been unjustly placed in premises ID to get their information
removed from the database. At this crucial moment, without the knowledge of
Jack and Ben, Liberty Ark's Massachusetts State Coordinator, Pat Stewart,
gave legislators a bill that would have established a "voluntary" state-run
NAIS. (The truly harmful nature of such legislation is evident from the
fact that Massachusetts presently has NO statutory authorization for any
state-level NAIS.) When faced with Stewart's submission, the legislators,
at that point unfamiliar with all the nuances of the NAIS fight, were on the
verge of accepting this Liberty Ark pro-voluntary NAIS bill for filing.
Fortunately, Ben and Jack really stepped up to the plate for all of us,
fought hard to get their stop-NAIS bill filed instead, and thought they had
this struggle behind them. But then Judith McGeary of FARFA/Liberty Ark
contacted Ben and Jack repeatedly, insisting that they accept at least some
part of the pro-voluntary NAIS Liberty Ark legislation. (One of McGeary's
objectives was to get the word "sustainable" removed from the bill's title;
Lamb and his ilk are outspoken enemies of "sustainability," claiming that
the concept is some nefarious plot hatched by "environmentalists.")
Ben and Jack solidly stood their ground and rejected any weakening of the
NOFA/Mass bill and made sure their legislators in both chambers would file
the NOFA/Mass strong antiNAIS bill. Then Pat Stewart of Liberty Ark, again
without telling Ben and Jack, approached a Senate aide with what she claimed
was a "compromise" bill. (Remember, Ben and Jack had held their ground and
refused to weaken the NOFA/Mass bill, so there never was any "compromise"
version of a bill.) In the confusion of the last-minute deadline for filing
bills, Stewart somehow got the weak Liberty Ark bill filed. Now NOFA/Mass
had to work doubly hard to clean up the confusion and make sure the strong
NOFA/Mass bill had been filed properly in both houses of the legislature.
In light of these events, one must ask, why would Judith McGeary and Pat
Stewart deliberately work to introduce pro-voluntary NAIS legislation in
Massachusetts (a state with NO statutory authority for any version of NAIS),
and why would they be so insistent on promoting the weakened legislation,
that they would use less-than-open tactics to get it filed?
Henry Lamb and the Early History of Liberty Ark
In early March of 2006, Henry Lamb called me and said that he wanted to
sponsor and fund a national group to oppose NAIS. He wanted me to be the
leader of this group. He asked me for the names of any people I thought
might be suitable to be members of a steering committee for such a group; I
suggested Judith McGeary and Karin Bergener, each of whom had independently
contacted me and expressed their interest in opposing NAIS. I gave Lamb,
Bergener, and McGeary one another's contact information and Lamb began
organizing a series of conference calls for the group to discuss forming the
organization that came to be called Liberty Ark.
My first contact with Lamb had taken place a couple of months earlier, when
he had asked me if he could reprint one of my early antiNAIS articles in his
Ecologic magazine. I had never heard of Lamb and, assuming that this was
some small ecology publication, I gave him permission for the reprint. Now,
in the larger context of the possible formation of Liberty Ark, I was
motivated to look more deeply into Lamb's publications and other activities.
It turned out that Lamb's magazine is in fact not an ecology publication at
all, but rather, the opposite – a virulent anti-environmental publication.
Lamb himself is best known as a voice for the corporate interests of
polluting industries, working to defeat initiatives that would promote clean
and livable rural areas for the good of the average people
(www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/12/gw_chart.html).
As Bergener, McGeary, Lamb, and I continued to discuss the formation of
Liberty Ark, Lamb added his son to the group. Meanwhile, I was also taking
part in separate conversations among Bergener, McGeary, and myself, in which
I was expressing growing misgivings about Lamb's motives for forming the
group in general, and in particular, my fear that Lamb would use Liberty Ark
to co-opt the antiNAIS movement into nothing more than an appendage of the
pro-corporate, anti-environmental agenda. However, Bergener and McGeary
insisted that Lamb's backing and funding were necessary to the group.
Just as the Liberty Ark website was about to be launched, Lamb told us in a
conference call that he was not going to permit his name to be used publicly
on the Liberty Ark website as one of the members of the steering committee
(albeit he was going to continue to be the funding behind the organization).
After that call, I resigned from the Liberty Ark steering committee and
severed ties with the group, because I was not willing to participate in any
venture that was not revealing the identities of all the persons behind it.
Henry Lamb's sponsorship of Liberty Ark is confirmed in public documents.
If you do a "who is" look-up on The Talent/Emerson Bill and the Misleading of Missourians
During last fall's Congressional elections, the Senate seat in Missouri was
very closely contested, with former Republican Senator Jim Talent ultimately
losing to Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill by a thin margin. Missouri
is a hotbed of opposition to NAIS and NAIS was definitely an issue in the
Senate race. McCaskill, whose family business was a local feed mill and who
therefore had ties to local and small-scale agriculture, consistently
opposed NAIS from the beginning of her campaign. Talent, on the other hand,
had developed ties to corporate and industrial agriculture during his
incumbency and had been primarily a supporter of NAIS before the election.
However, as the election season progressed, Talent began to take an
ostensible position against NAIS. In early September, Talent suddenly
introduced in the Senate legislation that would have given the green light
to the USDA's establishment of a "voluntary" federal NAIS (remember, there
has never been, and there is not to this day, any federal statute that
actually authorizes ANY element or form of NAIS). Also, Talent's NAIS
legislation would have been a frontal assault on the citizens' right to
know, because it would have prevented federal freedom-of-information
disclosure to citizens of information related to NAIS and also, in an
outrageous assault on the autonomy of state freedom of information laws,
would have prohibited states from allowing disclosure of state information
under their own state laws (109th Congress, S. 3862; companion House bill
introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, H.R. 6042).
Thus, it appeared that the Talent NAIS legislation was deliberately designed
to offer false appeasement to potential Missouri antiNAIS voters, while
actually facilitating the USDA's development of NAIS. In sum, the Talent
bill was pro-NAIS, and was recognized as such by many of Liberty Ark's own
state coordinators, by the antiNAIS organization Virginia Independent
Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA, www.vicfa.net) and their
legislative counsel, and by me, among many others. Nonetheless, Liberty Ark
insisted upon promoting the bill with press releases and an action alert
urging their followers to contact legislators in support of the bill. Not
surprisingly (now that you know Lamb founded and funds Liberty Ark), Henry
Lamb "independently" promoted the Talent bill and for good measure threw in
fulsome praise for Liberty Ark (without, of course, ever revealing that he
is the force that created and maintains Liberty Ark) (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51996).
Liberty Ark, Bergener, and McGeary deliberately supported the Talent bill
even though they were well aware of the terrible consequences if the bill
should pass (thankfully, it didn't) – namely, the bill's potential to create
the first-ever federal statutory authority for NAIS and its insults to
citizens' rights to government information. Because Bergener and McGeary
insisted on supporting the Talent bill against all objections, four of
Liberty Ark's strongest state coordinators resigned over this incident.
(Nonetheless, Liberty Ark, in its obsession with creating a misleading
impression of its own influence – an obsession discussed in greater detail
below – to this day has failed to remove the names of ex-supporters from its
website.)
Liberty Ark Lures NAIS Opponents into Slumber with the False Comfort of "Opt
Outs"
On January 29, 2007, Liberty Ark's Karin Bergener and Judith McGeary issued
a "press release" loudly trumpeting: "In a dramatic reversal of policy, the
USDA has decided to provide an 'OPT OUT' procedure for people whose premises
have been registered" in NAIS. (On precisely the same date, Henry Lamb
posted an article on his website about this "dramatic" development, almost
identical in wording to the Liberty Ark "press release.") The Liberty Ark
"press release" went on to suggest that Liberty Ark had somehow discovered
or even obtained this supposed boon through a telephone call to the USDA on
January 26, 2007.
The truth is that NOFA/Mass, not Liberty Ark, was the first organization to
secure a possibility of "opt outs." NOFA/Mass accomplished this in the
summer of 2006, six months prior to Bergener and McGeary's announcement of a
"dramatic reversal." Moreover, in New York State, apparently as a result of
complaints from individual farmers, the state began to offer "opt outs"
during the fall of 2006 for animal owners who had been placed in the
premises ID program through data-mining, without their prior knowledge or
consent. Perhaps most importantly, as NOFA/Mass itself has always
indicated, an "opt out" procedure, far from any "dramatic reversal," is
really a very poor remedy of too-little and too-late, since the animal owner
's information should never have been submitted to USDA/APHIS in the first
place, and since the states using data-mining to secure "false voluntary"
premises IDs did not offer to discontinue the data-mining.
This "opt out" incident is characteristic of two traits common to Liberty
Ark, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. First, they continually overstate the
importance of their own accomplishments and fail to accord credit to the
actual accomplishments of other groups and people. (Consistent with Lamb's
sponsorship of the group, they seem especially eager to omit mention of the
accomplishments of such pro-environmental groups as NOFA/Mass.) Second,
they invariably endorse and support weak compromises and half-measures such
as accepting "voluntary" government-run NAIS or supposed "opt outs" for
people who should never have been forced into NAIS in the first place. This
behavior is affirmatively harmful to the legitimate movement against NAIS.
It lulls into submission those opponents of NAIS who incorrectly may believe
that part of the problem has been "solved" by a misleadingly-named
"voluntary" program or by "opt outs." Further, it has the potential to
defeat the antiNAIS movement altogether. Consider what would happen if
Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener concentrated a large degree of power in
their own hands by overstating their own "accomplishments" and never
acknowledging the real accomplishments of others (particularly the real
accomplishments of pro-environmental, sustainable farming groups). In that
scenario, Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener might well place themselves in
the position of appearing to have the power to agree to some defeatist
"compromise." In other words, what if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener act
in ways that nullify the gains of those truly opposed to NAIS, by
insinuating themselves into a position of influence with bureaucrats,
legislators, and industrial farming interests such as Farm Bureau, and then
obtaining less-than-desirable "concessions" or legislation to further their
own agenda, despite the honest opposition of their "supporters?" Surely, we
have not all labored tirelessly against NAIS just to have some
unrepresentative, self-appointed group accept a result far short of what we
really want – the complete eradication of any government NAIS program.
The Hopeful Ending: A Growing and Diverse NAIS Opposition Can Sustain the
Movement's Truth
Many readers will be disheartened to learn of the tactics employed by
Liberty Ark, FARFA, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. But the revelation of
these tactics will allow true NAIS opponents to combat the negative effects
of these groups and their "leaders." Fortunately, at just the time when
more positive direction is needed by the antiNAIS movement, many more groups
are embracing the true NAIS opposition message or are moving toward a more
effective opposition. For example, R-CALF, previously only a mild and
partial NAIS opponent, soon may be forced by a member referendum to take a
stance of complete opposition. Many other livestock and farming groups on
the local, state, or even national levels have taken up the antiNAIS cause
in recent months. Sustainable and small-farming advocacy groups organized
at the state and local levels are beginning to work actively against NAIS.
Those who have been most effective and successful in fighting any form of
NAIS have done so by adhering to the true interests of their local
supporters, and becoming very active in educating both the public and their
government representatives about the dangers of any government-run animal
identification system. This is truly a grassroots movement, and dedicated
individuals and authentic local groups are responsible for the progress that
has been made in the fight. There are many well-informed and passionate
people diligently fighting against NAIS. The fight against NAIS offers the
first legitimate opportunity in years, perhaps decades, to turn back the
tide of corporate globalism and the earth-destroying excesses of industrial
technology, and restore the ethical and moral values upon which local,
human-scale, peaceful, generous communities can be built.
Don't squander the opportunity. Join with your friends, family, and
neighbors, reject greed and blind self-interest, despise the technocrats'
divorce from Nature, take back the Earth, restore the Creation as the cradle
of life.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York 13617
315-386-3199