How One Town Defeated HUD Grants

This information is courtesy of John Anthony the Founder of “Property Value Defense”. He is but one of the few people keeping us informed on what other towns are doing in other states to keep HUD influence out of local affairs.

Ringwood is a wooded community in a beautiful lake area of northwestern, NJ. Over the years, the borough has accepted HUD grant money as a pass down from larger Passaic County.

In July 2015, HUD underwent a radical change. While the agency’s grant names and terminology remain the similar, HUD took copious latitude in redefining their authority under the Fair Housing Act; and their revised enforcement methods establish severe legal risks never before encountered by most communities.

HUD’s “radicalization” can be hard to grasp, especially when jurisdictions have a long history of accepting their funds, as was the case with Ringwood.

In this edition, I included excerpts from the Borough’s public minutes. They are an excellent record of what can happen when local public officials stay informed and works together with community members.

EXCERPTS FROM JULY 19, 2016 MINUTES FROM RINGWOOD NJ

Pam Herbig, 14 Maple Road, Ringwood
I am here about the Passaic County Community Development Block Grant Program, I oppose the grant, and it is in conjunction with HUD. You should have sufficient time to read and understand about this program. If you continue to accept the HUD grant, we will be forced to prepare detailed taxpayer finance studies of our schools, retail, housing and other community agents to HUD. Mr. Obama is trying to pass this. I request you postpone this resolution until you have time to go over it, I think it will be a detriment to Ringwood, we don’t need this in Ringwood. If you don’t accept it, we won’t have it.

(You will notice that Mayor Speer already knows of the HUD changes. He also makes it clear he is “in favor of going for the CDBG program for this next cycle.”)

Mayor Speer
I have been looking at this since 2013. Stanley Kurtz does great reporting on what is going on with this fair housing rule. They have a gag order against Westchester County. He can’t even speak to his people about what they are doing up there. I am by nature opposed to any kind of Federal zoning. I am in favor of going for the CDBG program for this next cycle.

We are part of the Passaic County CDBG jurisdiction. In Passaic County you have four cities that go on their own for CDBG funds. There are 12 towns that are in the jurisdiction of Passaic County. We are going to be grouped in whether or not we sign this agreement. They are going to be producing a document, an AFH document for this next round. That is going to discuss the demographics of the Borough of Ringwood and its housing opportunity. In the previous three-year cycle of CBDG, it was called an analysis of impediments. I am not too concerned about them forcing development down our throat especially when we have COAH. We have to try and meet some kind of standards somewhere. The Highlands Council came out and told us we have three or four buildable lots in Ringwood.

Al Frick, Wayne, NJ
I have been following HUD for the last eight years. I grew up in the city and I moved to the suburbs. If you have taken CDBG grants before, everything changed in July 2015 with the affirmative fair housing was always in there. They added 377 new pages. In one section they say we won’t change your zoning, but if your zoning happens to conflict with the Fair Housing Act, then that is of concern. They never really spell out for you what the Fair Housing Act now happens to control. Once you sign on the line, you sign a contract that you will do whatever the plan turns out to be for that Fair Housing Assessment.

The data that you must use is HUD data. You must invite participation from the community, civil rights groups, community developments, community development organizations and developer. When these people are in on your plan, they have to be in for every step of the way. If they don’t like what you are doing, they concede. There are a lot of strings attached to this that was not attached before. You have the zoning issues, the call for participation from outside groups, and the identification of solutions. HUD will provide you with a list of 40 barriers that you should consider. Once you take the money you can’t get out of it.

(Al makes an important point below. The wording in the AFFH ruling is accurate, but somewhat deceptive. Actually,HUD wants nothing to do with a community’s zoning laws. However, to affirmatively further fair housing, grantees may be required to ignore or change them themselves. In other words, HUD is in control.)

The rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government.
However a paragraph later says, but we will assist recipients to adjust their land use and zoning laws to meet their legal obligation to Affirmative Fair Housing.

Nancy Masasi Wanaque, NJ
Some of the things that Wanaque said is we want the funding for our roads and sewers. We don’t use it for housing. It doesn’t matter. If you sign up with a resolution, you are agreeing to follow all the rules of COAH and the AFH, you are going to fill out this application. You are providing them with the information that you are not compliant with these new regulations. This Council is from a region, not local people. You can have civil rights groups from other areas to come in to your town and tell you what they think you will need. I would ask you to consider not voting for it until you have thoroughly vetted the entire process and know what is going on.

Connie Hernandez, 18 Pequot Terrace
I am against the HUD program. A long time ago there was talk about putting apartments on top of the hopping areas. We don’t have the infrastructure for a lot of additional kids and transportation. Can you consider not voting on this resolution tonight?

(As you can see, the Council moved to delay the vote and study the HUD issue further.)

On a motion by Councilman Marsala, seconded by Councilwoman Schaefer the Council tabled Resolution 2016-171 I order to educate themselves in the changes to CDBG.

Ryan Bolton, 28 Glen Road
Thank you for having the public comment section going on for so long, he also thanked the Council for scheduling the public hearing dedicated to the petition.

At the next meeting in August, the Council voted on the HUD issue. Two members, who were also Passaic County employees, abstained. The remaining four attending Council members voted unanimously to reject accepting HUD money through the County.

This is what happens when informed public officials and community members work together.

HUD Moves to Dictate Classroom Diversity

In a bold move, HUD partnered with the Departments of Transportation and Education to create a massive alteration in the way children experience school. The program is designed to help low-income families grow financially. Instead, it accomplishes something much different.

HUD Moves to Dictate Classroom Diversity
by John Anthony, Sustainable Freedom Lab

HUD is the ‘gold’ standard of dangerously unchecked bureaucracies. “Dangerously” because the agency’s zealous moves already threaten property owners’ choices and undermine the authority of local public officials.

Now HUD wants to move that control into the classroom.

In a joint meeting with members from the Departments of Education and Transportation, HUD presented their plan to embed socio-economic diversity in America’s schoolrooms.

Based on controversial reports, often using HUD provided data; the agency concludes that people living in wealthier areas have a better chance for success. Therefore, they reason, to create upward mobility for voucher recipients, HUD must relocate them into affluent neighborhoods and schools.

The agency is pulling three federal departments together to micro-manage the racial, ethnic and economic mix of students in America’s elementary and secondary classrooms.

“Diversity benefits all students in our schools,” said U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr., one of the leaders of the administration’s program. “Students who attend diverse schools will be better prepared to live and work, and be active citizens in today’s world.”

Unfortunately, Sec. King has little idea of what it takes to prepare students. In 2014, he was forced to resign as New York State Commissioner of Education, partially for blaming the failures of his Common Core implementation on “ignorant” children.

Kings performance was so abysmal; New York’s largest teachers union unanimously approved a vote of “no confidence” in his policies. That “failure” is now the US Secretary of Education.

As Jessica McNair, an Oneida County, NY educator commented, “Congress [must] take power out of the hands of the Department of Education. Otherwise, John King will continue to wreak damage on our public school children and their schools.”

McNair’s remarks were prescient.

Rather than promote education, King wants to transplant HUD recipients into more upscale “areas of opportunity.”

Under the Obama administration’s progressive educational approach, local control of education is a dinosaur. Reading, writing and arithmetic are incidental. Diversity is their new key to prosperity.

HUD proposes the development of regional Equity Assistance Centers to provide technical assistance to school districts to increase socioeconomic diversity and desegregate their schools.

For Obama, this is another step toward reducing what he calls, America’s “legacy of housing discrimination and segregation.”

HUD fuels its new classroom diversity with its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Under AFFH, HUD ignored Congress’ constraints in the Fair Housing Act. The agency granted itself authority over housing, education, transportation and now, “socioeconomic diversity.”

The administration contends their plans are too important to be confined to any “one jurisdiction’s borders” and promotes regional solutions to accomplish its goals. HUD wants state and local educational agencies to select new sites for schools, have boundary-free open enrollment and establish more charter schools.

The Secretary wants to create better land use and planning strategies. Working in tandem, HUD, ED and DOT encourage communities to align public transportation routes, sidewalk construction, and related bus stops with schools and housing facilities. HUD wants complete streets, mass transportation, and a community participation process.

If this sounds like a backdoor to regional sustainable development, rather than economic mobility, you are right. The Department of Education even blames the urban planner’s archenemy, ‘urban sprawl,’ for decreased economic opportunities. Suddenly the replacement of local governments with unaccountable regional councils is for “the children.”

For now, HUD’s socioeconomic diversity program is voluntary. But with millions of dollars in planning and training of staff to operate Equity Assistance Centers, it will soon be more than a voluntary option.

As explained in the report, Agency Tyranny, HUD’s AFFH rule obligates grant recipients to affirmatively further fair housing for all projects involving fair housing and urban development. If that strategy fails to convince hesitant communities to comply, there is always the threat of a disparate impact suit.

Shifting voucher recipients from one classroom to another does little to provide the drive, experience and emotional maturity necessary for success. It does even less to create good-paying jobs.

HUD is exploiting parents’ desires to help their children, as cover to replace local government with regional authorities using the legal muscle of AFFH.

It is time to recognize that incompetent bureaucrats and out of control federal agencies are the real enemies of economic mobility.

Vehicle Miles Traveled?

We’ve warned about the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax before, and there are people considering it. Link to I-95 Corridor Coalition added.

NH shouldn’t tax our odometers
By Rep. RICK LADD

NEW HAMPSHIRE’S STATE GAS TAX is currently set at 22.2 cents per gallon. This price is slightly less than the 24 cents per gallon paid in Massachusetts and much less than the 30 cents per gallon paid in Maine. With the exception of the 4.2 cents per gallon increase in 2014, New Hampshire’s tax on gasoline has remained relatively flat over the years.

The Department of Transportation, along with a number of departments and agencies, rely upon this source of revenue in order to support daily operations; however, with the increasing numbers of fuel efficient and electric vehicles, the department’s operating revenue has decreased.

Some vehicles are simply traveling farther on the same amount of gas; therefore, less gas is being used. This is a win for the consumer and environment, but decreasing revenue is counter-productive to highway and bridge maintenance.

In an effort to remedy the revenue issue, there appears to be an effort by several states to pursue a study of a mileage-based tax. Rather than being taxed for gas used, drivers would be taxed on miles driven. The mileage-based tax concept presents a whole host of bothersome issues such as financial hardship to those dependent upon high volume highway use and for all, privacy issues regarding how the government would collect and track data.

Accordingly, it is somewhat shocking to learn that a federal grant application was submitted by the Delaware DOT on behalf of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, a consortium of 16 states. It proposes pilot programs in five states — Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and another yet to be determined — designed to learn more about mileage-based user fees, and to evaluate implementation alternatives.

The total cost of the grant program is $2.98 million, of which $1.49 million comes from the federal government, with the remainder coming from individual states with matching funds. Connecticut has committed $300,000, Delaware and Pennsylvania would each pay $290,000 in cash, and Vermont would contribute $30,000 for planning and analysis. Instead of cash, the pilot program application reflects New Hampshire’s match share in the amount of $580,000 in toll credits.

Can New Hampshire afford to redirect more than a half-million dollars of toll credits needed for road maintenance and red-listed bridges in order to support a fee-per-mile taxation study?

The state budget-making process is built upon prioritizing needs and doing so through an open, transparent process involving public input. Redirecting toll revenue midstream during a budget cycle is contrary to that process and invites needed legislative oversight.

Mileage-based taxation generates a number of serious issues, of which protection of personal information and data is foremost. How is Big Brother going to obtain data identifying miles driven, and will this information remain protected and confidential?

If a scheme such as this does move forward, how will the state ascertain taxable miles driven in New Hampshire versus miles driven in another state or country? If mileage-based taxation becomes reality, how will North Country residents be impacted where traveling longer distances is required for work or other daily needs?

And, if a fee-per-mile study becomes reality in New Hampshire, how would this taxation scheme apply to vacationers from out-of-state?

Learning about the I-95 Coalition fee-per-mile study application and of New Hampshire’s decision to pilot the program with $580,000 from state toll credits is unsettling to this member of the Legislature.
—

Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, is in his fourth term in the New Hampshire House.

HUD Grants Threaten To Destroy The Fabric Of American Cities

From Technocracy News:

One year ago, the New York Post released “Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.“ In fact, his “secret race database” was merely a subset of the massive data collection scheme hatched by George W. Bush when he established the Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence in 2005. The DNI restructured all US intelligence agencies to create a unified data collection behemoth. The NY Post concluded, “Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history.”

The first political use of this massive data base is Obama’s HUD grant program. The NY Post noted this in 2015:

“Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.” [emphasis added]

Tom’s article analyzes the details of Obama’s nefarious plan to use HUD to destroy the very fabric of American cities. ⁃ TN Editor

If you still do not understand what’s in your master plan and why, you’d better read the full article here:

HUD Grants Threaten To Destroy The Fabric Of American Cities

Taking Money from HUD Makes Lawsuits More Likely

The latest from John Anthony at Property Value Defense…

HUD’s Rickety World of Worthless Words
When public officials first learn how HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule can force communities to overturn voters’ decisions and ignore their own zoning laws, often their first comment is, “Let’s check with HUD. We can’t afford to lose the grant money.”

Officials are rightly worried. HUD’s own documents show the agency has markedly increased their legal actions against grant recipients.

But, according to the Ninth Circuit Court, assurances from federal agency representatives may not be worth much:

In 1999, Big Meadows Grazing of Flathead County, Montana entered into a conservation easement with the US. Department of Agriculture. Prior to signing the contract, agency representatives assured Big Meadows that both parties would participate in restoration activities on the “eased” land. They estimated a needed riparian fix would cost $80,000. The government even provided a “manual” outlining the intended work and relationship.

Several months later, over Big Meadows’ objections, the government completed a massively larger “fix” than discussed, and billed the grazing association for $486,000. Outraged at what they considered deception, Big Meadows sued the government.

The results were devastating.

The court decided that “the Manual cannot bind the government because it… [was not] promulgated according to the Administrative Procedure Act.” As for the assurances of cooperation from government representatives, the court was blunt, “We will not review allegations of noncompliance with an agency statement that is not binding on the agency.”

Assurances, written notes and even manuals offered by federal representatives, unless they are in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes entry into the Federal Register, are nothing more than non-binding words.

As Big Meadows learned, those words can be costly.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is a binding rule with the force of law. It relies on grassroots civic groups and legal advocates to compel local communities to bend their zoning laws to the government’s will.

Worse, as Douglas County, CO discovered, HUD’s legal requirements are a moving target, hard to define and harder to hit.

No matter what your HUD representative says, in a court of law, it is the contract that matters.

If HUD Says This, Call Your Attorney

HUD representatives offer grantee communities much AFFH advice. Some is valuable and others misleading. Here are the two most frequently cited remarks our members have shared regarding HUD advice, and PVD’s response.

HUD comment:
“Our HUD representative told us we did not have to worry about our Community Development Block Grant funds under AFFH, because our community has a much different situation than Westchester County.” (Westchester was the first county sued under the False Claims Act for failure to affirmatively further fair housing. It became the basis for HUD’s new litigious direction.)

PVD response:
Every jurisdiction that has faced HUD actions from compliance reviews to lawsuit intervention is unique. Westchester County, Marin County, Rockford, IL, Dubuque IA, among many others are each different situations resulting in various legal actions based on the False Claims Act, supposed civil rights violations and Disparate Impact issues.

To suggest that your community can accept CDBG grants that fall under AFFH with little concern because it is unique is misleading.

HUD comment:
“AFFH should not be a large concern because your community is already in compliance.”

PVD response:
There is little way for HUD to know if you are in compliance until you complete the new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Even then, according to the Federal Register, HUD’s acceptance of an AFH “does not mean that HUD has determined that a jurisdiction has complied with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing under the Fair Housing Act; has complied with other provisions of the Act; or has complied with other civil rights laws, regulations or guidance.” §5.162(a)(2)

In addition, AFFH requires that instead of refraining from discrimination in housing as in the past, fund recipients must now work to end it by taking steps that go far beyond the construction of affordable housing.

Finally, HUD’s new expansive interpretation of the Fair Housing Act allows the agency to oversee community economic diversity, classroom socioeconomic diversity, encourage planned communities to foster upward mobility for low-income families and involve the Department of Transportation to assist in reducing poverty by “establishing access points for opportunity and mobility.”

Using AFFH as a platform, HUD has expanded affordable housing into large scale social engineering.

Stay informed and stay in control,
John Anthony, Founder
Sustainable Freedom Lab and Property Value Defense

Visit PVD on FaceBook and consider donationg to John’s group, as with Tom DeWeese, they provide the results of major research into what is happening with this situation.

*Neither PVD nor Sustainable Freedom Lab are attorneys. This email is not intended to provide legal advice. As always consult your legal advisors before entering into any agreement with the federal government or any other entities.

Attack on NH Farmers Continues

A land use dispute on Henniker’s Mount Hunger Road continues, and both sides are calling in attorneys.

Stephen Forster, a Christmas tree farmer who hosts weddings on his 110-acre farm, is planning to take the town back to court after the zoning board decided the planning board erred in granting Forster a conditional use permit.

Forster, through his attorneys at BCM Environmental and Land Law, filed the motion for rehearing right before the deadline of July 15, which was 30 days after the decision was made.

The zoning board, which is not scheduled to meet until Aug. 17, has 30 days from the date of the filing to hold a public meeting, where members will review the submission and decide if there is new evidence to constitute a rehearing.

Forster says the zoning board was “unreasonable and unlawful, and totally negated the article the legislative body voted in.”

Read more…

What Are Complete Streets?

Here is an invitation to a presentation on Complete Streets movement, a which was inspired by the US’s goal to effectively enforce the UN’s MDGs and SDGs.

If you live in this area, you are certainly going to want to attend this breakfast.

Please note at the bottom, the numerous NON-governmental groups that are promoting this, who represent the various aspects of your lives that the government hopes to control. Too fat? Complete Streets will encourage you to walk. Don’t want to use gas or oil? They expect you’ll walk or bike. Want housing? They would love it if you chose a compact apartment in the city… even if the area is NOT citified.

“Low taxes” are a hook, but in most cases these boondoggle projects cost the taxpayers dearly in unused transportation systems and other features. 25-34 year olds are in fact, wanting to leave the cities where they attended college and strike out on a plot of land of their own, as is the American Dream.

From the Lakes Region Planning Commission:

What are Complete Streets?
How can they benefit our communities?

The Lakes Region enjoys a strong base of diverse industries, civic engagement, and a high quality of life. Creativity, efficiency, and adaptability are hallmarks of both private and public enterprise in the region.

And yet:

    The population age 65+ in this region will rise from 15% to 34% by 2030. Seniors want to live where they can still be active even after they give up driving.
    Major employers increasingly tend to locate in communities where their executives want to live: ones that invest in their downtowns, and in recreation, schools, and safety. Low taxes are part of the picture, but far from all of it.
    25 to 34 year-olds with a college degree are increasingly moving to places where they don’t have to drive to get to work and entertainment.
    People are looking for opportunities to live more active lifestyles, as decreased physical activity has been linked to type 2 diabetes, cancer, stroke, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality.
    The annual medical costs for obesity in New Hampshire are estimated at $302 million.

How do we address these needs? How do we make our streets more inviting and accessible to everyone, whether they arrive in a vehicle, on foot, on a bicycle, or by other means, regardless of age or ability?

On Friday, July 29th, come find out why 663 communities across the nation, and five in New Hampshire, have adopted Complete Streets to increase economic vitality, safety, and public health. We’ll gather at 9:00 am at the City Hall in Laconia for a light breakfast and a brief presentation with questions, then go outside to see real life examples. We’ll lead one group on foot and on the bus, or you can join the second group on your own bicycle for a short ride, coming back inside to enjoy some refreshments and compare notes. Wear comfortable shoes and bring a raincoat, just in case!

This event is brought to you by the Bike-Walk Alliance of NH, TTransport NH and HEAL NH in partnership with Lakes Region Planning Commission.

For more information, contact Rebecca Harris, RLHarris@TransportNH.org

America’s homeowners should be shaking in their shoes

America’s homeowners should be shaking in their shoes. The federal government has decided that people who have worked, saved and planned so they can buy homes in nice, safe neighborhoods of their own choosing, are racists. They charge that it is a “social injustice.” The government now claims that it’s unfair unless everyone can have the same, whether they earn it or not. And it doesn’t matter whether they can afford such a home. We’re told that it’s racist to deny someone an equal home, just because they don’t have the money for it. White privilege, don’t you know.

Read more…

Related Links

“A World Government Constitution Under The UN Already Exists – The US Is Involved Up To Our Eyeballs”
How Sustainable Development Goals are Being Met

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule
by Tom DeWeese

I have been in the fight against Agenda 21 since the beginning – even before its introduction in 1992. For most of these years Americans have ignored the issue, as they didn’t see it affecting them personally. That apathy is now changing. The fight against Agenda 21 is heating up in cities across the nation, beyond anything experienced before. One new twist in the enforcement of Agenda 21 policy is the new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ruling called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

hudaffhmapmilwaukee

AFFH requires communities that apply for HUD grants to strip-search every neighborhood, detailing income level, religion, race, and national origin of every single person living there. HUD has created specific guidelines dictating specific numbers of each for a proper “balance.” If there are any shortages in any of the categories, then the neighborhood is deemed to be “out of balance.” HUD then requires that the community correct the situation. That “correction” requires communities to unnecessarily spend millions of tax dollars. (See graphic at left for an example of HUD’s online mapping tools for local jurisdictions to implement AFFH; this is a map of the Milwaukee area with “Housing Burden” shown by shades of gray and “National Origin” shown by color-coded dots with one dot equal to 75 people.)

To impose AFFH, HUD has changed tactics that are catching unaware local officials by surprise. In spite of our warnings that HUD grants came with severe strings attached, local officials have routinely sought and accepted HUD grants, declaring them as “free” money for local development. There was at least a pretense of local control. No more. HUD is now employing a stronger legal enforcement mechanism seldom used before to strictly enforce those attached and hidden strings. The result is social engineering that is leading to the destruction of property values and property rights of neighborhoods. In addition, any local governing body that takes a HUD grant now finds that their ability to govern the community as they were elected to do is basically gone, as HUD bureaucrats dictate policy.

HUD has already filed legal actions against communities such as Westchester County, New York, and Marin County, California, for attempting to stand up to the HUD rules. Meanwhile, Baltimore, Maryland, has been forced to spend $30 million over the next 10 years to build 1,000 low-income homes in affluent neighborhoods. Such threats are growing across the nation.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) have been trying to add amendments to legislation to defund AFFH. Twice they have presented such amendments, and twice they have been betrayed by Republican leadership. In one case such an amendment by Lee was tabled after it was basically sabotaged by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). However, in 2015 Rep. Gosar had already introduced H.R. 1995, a bill to prohibit HUD from implementing the AFFH rule. This bill has 25 cosponsors and is in a pending status, but needs a lot more support in order to be passed. In the meantime, Lee and Gosar are continuing their attempts to add amendments to various bills to defund AFFH.

There is good news in the AFFH fight for Agenda 21 opponents. Some local elected officials are finally starting to understand the dangers of these rules and the massive overreach by the federal government to enforce them. Now many are seeking ways to fight back and are beginning to reach out to those of us who have led the fight against Agenda 21. They seek help in stopping these policies. This has been a rare occurrence until now.

You should take action by pressuring your local officials to reject calls for new HUD grants. Explain that HUD has changed the rules with the new AFFH rule and that acceptance of such grants will bring an army of federal regulators to the community.

You should also call and email your senators (202-224-3121) and representative (202-225-3121) and demand they support the efforts of Representative Gosar and Senator Lee to prohibit implementation of the AFFH rule with H.R. 1995 or to defund it with amendments to other bills.

H/T JBS

Americans Should Have the Right to Farm

Michigan Loses ‘Right To Farm’ This Week: A Farewell To Backyard Chickens and Beekeepers

Michigan residents lost their “right to farm” this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.”

Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan’s Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

And who knew the WHO would be involved? Once again, those surveys you think are innocent are feeding the data to the international government about who is doing what when it’s none of their business.

The ruling comes within days of a report by The World Health Organization that stated the world is currently in grave danger of entering a post-antibiotic era. The WHO’s director-general Dr. Margaret Chan argued that the antibiotic use in our industrialized food supply is the worst offender adding to the global crisis.

Read more…