WHo Owns YOUR Land?

Learn about Environmental Services and how the concept of monetizing ephemeral assets will be used to take your land

Then watch Margaret Byfield’s amazing talk contextualizing this process from our symposium last week

Here is Margaret Byfield’s talk: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/attack-on-food-and-farmers-and-how-to-fight-back/margaret-byfield-assault-on-land-and-liberty/

Here is where the article below appears, on the American Stewards for Liberty website: https://americanstewards.us/usda-is-monetizing-natural-processes-under-the-sustains-act/

And right below the video there is a button for a timed transcript.

………………………….

The USDA is preparing policy to implement the Sustains Act, determining who will own “environmental services,” which include the air we breathe, photosynthesis, pollination, and the health benefits of open space.

This step is critical for proponents of the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda to achieve, as it will provide the path to transfer America’s real assets from private citizens to federal and international interests. The earlier attempt to accomplish this was stopped when the Natural Asset Company scam was soundly defeated in January.

Nevertheless, the Biden-Harris Administration is preparing to determine ownership of natural processes on private lands as it implements the Sustains Act authorized through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. They are dragging America into a dangerous black hole that will have devastating consequences on our economy, and on individual property rights.

There is a reason “natural processes” have never been considered property before. The way in which the monetary value of these natural assets must be derived is purely subjective. These are not true property rights which can be held by someone to the exclusion of another with the value determined by consumers. The value of natural processes will be set administratively, which can be changed depending on the social agenda of who is in the White House.

Some have argued that “environmental services” are a legitimate commodity that should be available for trade through the free market system. However, these arguments fail to acknowledge that the potential market for “environmental services” was created solely by blackmailing producers to comply with a social agenda, for the purpose of implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development targets.

They are not a “free market” product. The only reason we have “carbon credits,” or “carbon sequestration” is because those now holding the political power, and those seizing the opportunity to get rich off the scam, are using this power to impose their social agenda on industry and the rest of us.

Environmental services are the antithesis of a free market system. Just because they are taking advantage of our free markets to continue the scam does not make them any less blackmail.

Getting back to basic principles, neither our nation nor our financial markets were to be driven by social agendas dictating how Americans would live. This is precisely what our founders fought against. Nevertheless, this is the long game behind monetizing natural processes.

What is the Sustains Act?

The Sustains Act provides a way for private entities to contribute funds to help implement conservation programs on private land. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers the program and the Secretary is given sole discretion as to how the program will be carried out. August 16th of this year, the USDA issued a “request for information,” published in the Federal Register and asked that public comments be submitted within 30 days, by September 16th.

This “request for information” is not a formal rule-making process where citizens can later challenge the final policy through the Administrative Procedures Act. Instead the “request for information” invites people to submit comments, which the USDA may or may not take into account, and serves to allow the Department to claim they involved the public in the development of policy implementing the act.

This is what administrations do when they want to implement a social agenda without accountability to the people.

Who Will Own The Environmental Services?

The new law sets out how the Secretary is to determine ownership of the environmental services that are created on private land through the federal conservation programs.  The contributing entity, the one who contributes private funding to the conservation programs, is to “prescribe the terms of ownership” of the environmental services, subject to the approval of the Secretary.

Notice, determining the value and ownership of these natural processes produced from private lands requires only the involvement of the Secretary and the private contributing entity — not the landowner.

In the section titled “Role of Contributing Entity,” the law states:

“An entity contributing funds under this subsection may –” (5)(D) “with respect to an activity funded pursuant to this subsection that may result in environmental services benefits to be sold through an environmental services market, subject to the approval of the Secretary, prescribe the terms for ownership of the entity’s share of such environmental services benefits resulting from such activity;”

The decision of who owns the environmental services does not include the producer or landowner.

Under the section titled “Producer Participation,” the law directs the following:

(6)(A) “Notification – The Secretary shall establish a process to provide notice to producers — (i) of activities that may be carried out through a covered program, pursuant to this section; and (ii) any terms prescribed by the contributing entity under paragraph (5)(D) with respect to such activities.”

Even though the section is labeled “producer participation,” there is no producer participation prescribed in determining who will own the environmental services derived from the private land. What is directed is that notice be provided to the producer of the decision the Secretary and the contributing entity have made for how the environmental services will be allocated on their property.

The next section titled “Retention of Environmental Service Benefits,” raises more questions than it answers:

(6)(B) “The Secretary shall not claim or impede any action of a producer with respect to the environmental services benefits they accrue through activities funded pursuant to this subsection.”

After the Secretary and contributing entity have determined how much of the environmental services the contributing entity owns, presumably based on their financial commitment contributed to the program, then the landowner can assert what he believes he has accrued through his activities, and the Secretary cannot claim or impede this assertion.

What is left unaddressed is what portion will the Federal government own? This section refers to the producers’ claim of ownership of the environmental services, and prevents the government from impeding this. Logically, the portion the Federal government owns has already been decided when the Secretary and contributing entities earlier determined ownership of the natural processes.

So the division of who owns the natural processes on private lands that are enrolled in these federal conservation programs will be determined by the contributing private entity and the Secretary, after which the landowner / producer may assert his claim.

What is also unclear is whether the addition of private funds can be added to a program retroactively, in other words, after the landowner has already enrolled in the program. There is nothing in the Sustains law that specifies this new authority only applies to new enrollments.  What if a contributing entity wants to contribute funds to a covered program on property already enrolled?

The conservation programs subject to the Sustains Act include:

  • Environmental Quality Incentives Program
  • Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
  • Regional Conservation Partnership Program
  • Emergency Watersheds Protection Program
  • Healthy Forests Reserve Program
  • Watersheds Protection and Flood Prevention Act programs (excluding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program)

Advancing the Biden-Harris Natural Asset Strategy

In January of 2023, the White House finalized the “National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental – Economic Decisions (SEED)”.  This creates a new line-item on the Federal Balance Sheet that will record the value of real assets such as land and water, as well as natural processes such as air and environmental services.  These values will be derived from all lands in the U.S. regardless of who actually owns the land, be it federal, state, local or private.

The Strategy is a part of the larger 30×30 agenda, which is the international plan to permanently protect 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030. Just as with the 30×30 initiative, there is no Congressional or Constitutional authorization for this National Strategy.  It is being directed solely from the White House.

The 30×30 land grab increases the protected lands in America, reducing those lands owned by private citizens and increasing the federal control over private lands largely through conservation programs and easements. The value of the protected lands can be transferred to others by creating a new asset, “environmental services” through “Natural Capital Accounts,” and the defeated “Natural Asset Companies,” or NACs.

Just as with the attempt to create NACs on the New York Stock Exchange, this strategy will monetize elements that should never be considered property. If the Federal government can claim ownership of these processes or even regulatory powers, they can control people’s use of these processes through devices such as carbon credits, biodiversity credits, water quality credits, and taxes.

Another dangerous element of this Strategy is that it places the value of all land on the Federal Balance Sheet, including private property, for the first time in the history of the United States.  This includes the value of every American’s residential lot and home.  In so doing, every American’s property will be considered a U.S. Asset that adds to the nation’s financial position in the world economy. In simplistic terms, it becomes collateral for the growing national debt.

In April of 2024, the White House released the results of four pilot natural asset accounts that explain how they will derive the value of these assets for Federal accounting purposes.  These four test accounts cover the elements of Land, Water, Air and Environmental Services, and they reveal several concerning actions. These are:

  1. Under the land pilot test account, they clearly state that private property will be included as a Federal asset.

The press release states:

“ … Private land in the contiguous 48 states was valued at $32 trillion, equivalent to roughly 30% of the net wealth already measured in U.S. Accounts. Accounting for natural assets like land on our nation’s balance sheet is critical; omitting them would dramatically understate U.S. wealth.”

The linked document cited further reinforces their intent:

“Our results underscore the potential importance of private land as a quantitatively significant asset on our national balance sheet…”

  1. Under the Environmental Services pilot test account, they make clear that not only will the value of the real property be included on the federal balance sheet, but also the natural processes derived from these lands where the federal government has funded projects such as the conservation programs.

This is where the “Sustains Act” becomes one of the implementing components of this strategy, because it will create a monetary value for these natural processes derived from the conservation programs, the ownership of which is being determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

From the White House Strategy:

“When the government spends a dollar to restore a coral reef or a forest that will attract tourism, supply water, or clean the air, our current system does not capture the economic value of this investment. The National Strategy gives us a path to change that.” (Introduction, page iv)

From the press release we learn more about what will be tracked in this account:

“Progress is ahead of schedule for developing natural capital accounts such as forests, pollination, urban ecosystems, and natural hazards. In addition, U.S. researchers are working with their European counterparts to understand lessons learned for implementing natural capital accounts in different countries.”

  1. All of these test pilot accounts rely on the UN Accounting System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) in order to derive the value of these assets.  Because Environmental Services and the value of natural processes is a subjective value, they need to rely on this esoteric system that does not conform to U.S. Accounting standards, just as they were attempting to do with NACs.
  2. A key purpose for the Strategy is to track our progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, something which neither Congress, nor the people have approved..  Once this system is in place, it gives the Federal government the data and means to control how Americans use their property and whether citizens can be governed to have a “net zero” impact on climate change.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Even though citizens comments can be ignored by the Secretary as it prepares how it will implement the Sustains Act, it is valuable to make your position known so that if the next administration is not in on the caper, they can use public outcry against this action as a basis to stop the monetization of natural processes.

Here are three points we recommend you make in your comments.

  1. Natural processes should not be monetized, owned by one entity to the exclusion of another, through environmental services markets.
  2. Whatever benefits are created as a result of the conservation programs remain owned in full by the landowner of that property.
  3. The addition of private capital being used to fund federal conservation programs cannot occur retroactively on lands already enrolled.

You can submit your comments here.

We also have an opportunity in the coming months to call on Congress to rescind the Sustains Act through the budget reconciliation process.  It is not too soon to ask your Representative and Senators and ask that they do so.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/learn-about-environmental-services?publication_id=746368&post_id=148886372&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Dangers of Central Bank Digital Currency

Excellent 40 minutes of Catherine Austin Fitts on CBDCs (which may be rolling out next in New Zealand, after a failed launch in Nigeria last year)

They try things out in one setting, then another, till they get it right

In this installment of our series ‘Our Digital Future’, Alistair Harding speaks to financial guru Catherine Austin Fitts about the unified ledger, programmability, and the possibility of central bank control over how we spend our money.

https://realitycheck.radio/replay/our-digital-future-catherine-austin-fitts-cbdcs-on-the-unified-ledger-programmability-and-the-possibility-of-central-bank-control-over-how-we-spend-our-money/

And about that failed launch in Nigeria.

Why Did CBDC Fail in Nigeria? Valuable Lessons for Developing Countries

By Tuhu Nugraha

October 22, 2023

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/22/why-did-cbdc-fail-in-nigeria-valuable-lessons-for-developing-countries/

In the rapidly digitizing era, many nations are eyeing Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as the future solution for payment systems. However, Nigeria’s case illustrates that transitioning to CBDC isn’t a straightforward path, especially for developing countries.

Based on an analysis by Nicholas Anthony on Coindesk, the Nigerian government attempted to propel a transition to a cashless economy by implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Yet, the imposed cash usage restrictions led to public protests demanding the restoration of paper money. Despite the government’s efforts to boost CBDC adoption, such as removing access restrictions and offering payment discounts, these initiatives proved fruitless.

Moreover, with cash withdrawal limits and currency redesigns, the situation worsened, triggering a cash shortage and escalating public dissatisfaction. Consequently, CBDC adoption in Nigeria remains abysmally low, with less than 0.5% of the population using it, while over 50% have embraced cryptocurrency. What can we learn from Nigeria’s CBDC failure?…

sa-mRNA — What is it?

What is self-amplifying mRNA?

And it is already being used in Japan and maybe soon in the US. It combines the unknown duration of effect of mRNA with the mutation-producing effects of nuclear DNA.

Here is what the Perplexity AI says. Note that it can be called self-amplifying DNA also:

Self-amplifying DNA refers to a type of DNA-based vaccine platform that combines elements of conventional DNA vaccines with the self-replicating capabilities of RNA viruses. Here are the key points about self-amplifying DNA:

  1. Structure and components:
    • It is a circular double-stranded DNA molecule
  • Contains a strong promoter (e.g., human cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter)

Encodes viral replicase genes, typically from alphaviruses or flaviviruses. Includes the gene of interest (GOI) encoding the vaccine antigen

  • Mechanism of action:
    • After delivery into cells, the DNA is transcribed in the nucleus to produce self-amplifying RNA
  • This RNA is transported to the cytoplasm where it self-replicates and produces high levels of the antigen
  • The self-amplification process mimics viral infection, leading to sustained antigen production
  • Advantages:
    • Combines benefits of DNA vaccines (stability, ease of production) with self-amplifying RNA technology

Requires lower doses compared to conventional DNA or mRNA vaccines

  • Induces potent humoral and cellular immune responses
  • More stable than RNA, simplifying storage and distribution
  • Delivery methods:
    • Can be delivered as naked DNA, often using electroporation for improved cellular uptake
  • Can also be formulated with lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) for enhanced delivery
  • Applications:
    • Promising platform for rapid vaccine development against emerging infectious diseases
  • Potential for use in therapeutic cancer vaccines and other applications
  • Self-amplifying DNA, also referred to as DNA-launched replicons (DREPs), represents an innovative approach in vaccine technology that aims to combine the advantages of DNA vaccines with the potency of self-amplifying RNA systems.

I was asked to expand on this idea. I don’t want to alarm unnecessarily nor fail to alarm when appropriate. Let me give an example: how I approached the COVID mRNA vaccines before they were released.

  1. I was worried about them but there were noreal data to go on
  2. I assisted Dr. Sin Hang Lee in his petition (as editor) to the FDA to try and stop them in Nov 2020 on the basis that the Pfizer trials were not conducted per existing standards
  3. I shared information from Dr. Patrick Whelan on my blog about problems that might be anticipated.
  4. I did NOT tell people not to take them. I warned them about problem that might be anticipated.
  5. Later I did warn people, once the problems became clearer, in January 2021 and later. I was one of the first to issue warnings, as soon as I could identify problems.

Looking back, I wish I had issued stronger warnings. But I had no reason to think the vaccines would be as bad as they were.

Right now I am looking at a theoretical vaccine construct. I’m worried. But I don’t know how worried to be. I have no human data. But Japanese doctors, where these vaccines are already being made and used, have warned that they are a disaster.

How big a disaster, I don’t know. I hope to find out in September when I will be in Japan, speaking at the ICS 6 Conference in Tokyo with the Japanese doctors who are speaking out, if not before.

And now we learn that CSL Sequirus is involved in the Japanese vaccine. BTW, 6 cases of chest pain in 828 subjects shortly after vaccination were blown off by the investigators. The control vaccine was Comirnaty, which would (naturally) make comparator vaccines look not too bad.

Here is the rest of this press release:

The approval is based on positive clinical data from several ARCT-154 studies, including an ongoing 16,000 subject efficacy study performed in Vietnam as well as a Phase 3 COVID-19 booster trial, which achieved higher immunogenicity results and a favorable safety profile compared to a standard mRNA COVID-19 vaccine comparator.  Initial study results have been published in MedRxiv and are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of the year.

[Here is the preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.13.23292597v1]

“We are proud of the role that Arcturus has played in this collaboration to develop and validate the first approved sa-mRNA product in the world,” said Joseph Payne, Chief Executive Officer of Arcturus Therapeutics. “This approval for the sa-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a major achievement, and we are excited to embark on future endeavors that utilize our innovative sa-mRNA vaccine platform alongside our global exclusive partner, CSL.”

CSL’s vaccine business, CSL Seqirus, one of the largest influenza vaccine providers in the world, partnered exclusively with Meiji Seika Pharma for distribution of the sa-mRNA COVID vaccine, ARCT 154, in Japan.

“Our expertise in seasonal and pandemic influenza positions us well to help the global community reduce the burden of COVID-19 and we look forward to playing a key role in helping protect the people of Japan,” said Stephen Marlow, Senior Vice President and General Manager of CSL Seqirus.

About sa-mRNA
Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology protects against infectious diseases by instructing cells in the body to make a specific protein, stimulating the immune response, and leaving a blueprint to recognize and fight future infection. However, sa-mRNA makes copies of the mRNA which generates the production of more protein compared to an equivalent amount of mRNA in a vaccine.  The technology has the potential to create more potent cellular immune responses and increase duration of protection, while using considerably lower doses of mRNA.

About CSL
CSL (ASX:CSL; USOTC:CSLLY) is a global biotechnology company with a dynamic portfolio of lifesaving medicines, including those that treat haemophilia and immune deficiencies, vaccines to prevent influenza, and therapies in iron deficiency and nephrology. Since our start in 1916, we have been driven by our promise to save lives using the latest technologies. Today, CSL – including our three businesses: CSL Behring, CSL Seqirus and CSL Vifor – provides lifesaving products to patients in more than 100 countries and employs 32,000 people. Our unique combination of commercial strength, R&D focus and operational excellence enables us to identify, develop and deliver innovations so our patients can live life to the fullest. For inspiring stories about the promise of biotechnology, visit CSLBehring.com/Vita and follow us on Twitter.com/CSL. For more information about CSL, visit www.CSL.com.

About Arcturus Therapeutics
Founded in 2013 and based in San Diego, California, Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: ARCT) is a global late-stage clinical mRNA medicines and vaccines company with enabling technologies: (i) LUNAR® lipid-mediated delivery, (ii) STARR® mRNA Technology (sa-mRNA) and (iii) mRNA drug substance along with drug product manufacturing expertise. The Company has an ongoing global collaboration for innovative mRNA vaccines with CSL Seqirus, and a joint venture in Japan, ARCALIS, focused on the manufacture of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics. Arcturus’ pipeline includes RNA therapeutic candidates to potentially treat ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency and cystic fibrosis, along with its partnered mRNA vaccine programs for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and influenza. Arcturus’ versatile RNA therapeutics platforms can be applied toward multiple types of nucleic acid medicines including messenger RNA, small interfering RNA, circular RNA, antisense RNA, self-amplifying RNA, DNA, and gene editing therapeutics. Arcturus’ technologies are covered by its extensive patent portfolio (patents and patent applications issued in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, and other countries). For more information, visit www.ArcturusRx.com. In addition, please connect with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/what-is-self-amplifying-mrna?publication_id=746368&post_id=147039126&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

OMG!!!! The Seas AREN’T Rising!!!!

Shocker: NYT admits the seas only rise in some areas, and islands aren’t disappearing. And the “science” was looking at aerial photos over time. Duh.

Remember when the Maldives govt held a cabinet meeting underwater for publicity?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/26/climate/maldives-islands-climate-change.html

On a wisp of land in the Indian Ocean, two hops by plane and one bumpy speedboat ride from the nearest continent, the sublime blue waves lapping at the bone-white sand are just about all that breaks the stillness of a hot, windless afternoon.

The very existence of low-slung tropical islands seems improbable, a glitch. A nearly seamless meeting of land and sea, peeking up like an illusion above the violent oceanic expanse, they are among the most marginal environments humans have ever called home.

And indeed, when the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands, which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls, were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage in their entirety. As the ice caps melted and the seas crept higher, these accidents of geologic history were bound to be corrected and the tiny islands returned to watery oblivion, probably in this century.

Then, not very long ago, researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.

Scientists have come to understand some but not all of the reasons for this. Which is why a team of them recently converged in the Maldives, on an island they’d spend weeks outfitting with instruments and sensors and cameras.

They were there to learn more about how the steady collision of blue waves and white sand does surprising and seemingly magical things to coastlines, both destroying land and extending it. Really, though, they were trying to answer a bigger question: If atoll nations aren’t facing certain and imminent erasure, then what are they facing? For having a future is not the same thing as having a secure future.

If, for instance, some of their islands become difficult to live on but others do not, then atoll governments will have to make hard choices about which places to save and which to sacrifice. In the places they save, they will have to plan for the long term about supplying fresh water, about creating jobs, about providing schools and health care and infrastructure. They will have to invent the best future they can with the limited resources they have.

In short, atolls might not be such outliers in this world after all. Look hard enough, and they start to look a lot like everywhere else…

To understand what had happened to the atolls since this acceleration began, two researchers, Arthur Webb and Paul Kench, decided to look down at them from above. The scientists collected aerial photos of 27 Pacific islands from the middle of the 20th century. Then, they compared them to recent satellite images. “I’m not sure we really knew what we would find,” Dr. Kench recalled.

Their findings caused an uproar.

The seas had risen an inch or so each decade, yet the waves had kept piling sediment on the islands’ shores, enough to mean that most of them hadn’t changed much in size. Their position on the reef might have shifted. Their shape might be different. Whatever was going on, it clearly wasn’t as simple as oceans rise, islands wash away.

Dr. Webb and Dr. Kench’s study, which came out in 2010, inspired other scientists to hunt for more old photos and conduct further analysis. The patterns they’ve uncovered in recent years are remarkably consistent across the 1,000 or so islands they’ve studied: Some shrank, others grew. Many, however, were stable. These studies have also added to the intrigue by revealing another pattern: Islands in ocean regions where sea level rise is fastest generally haven’t eroded more than those elsewhere…

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/shocker-nyt-admits-the-seas-only?publication_id=746368&post_id=146418320&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email