Bill Gates is now the largest farmland owner in America. What will you do when famine hits America?

How much of the United States does China really own? | Fox News

Gates owns 242 Thousand acres of farmland in 16 States, many theories abound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsR3zx8JXws

He also owns 27,000 acres of other land.

The 2008 documentary video Food, Inc. exposed the corporate takeover of food production.
Then there were theories that Monsanto purchased the Blackwater mercenary army. It might not be proved, but there is substantial evidence behind this theory.

Nearly 30 million acres of U.S. farmland is owned by foreigners. Much of this is China. Source: Nearly 30 Million Acres Of US Farmland Now Owned By Foreigners

One in four U.S. pigs are owned by China. Source: How China is buying up America’s food supply
A Communist Chinese firm has purchased Smithfield, the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer. According to Smithfield “The company was founded in Smithfield, Virginia, in 1936 and was acquired by Hong Kong-based WH Group in 2013.”

America cannot feed itself.

According to Census.gov the U.S. exported $15,119,687,096 in food and agriculture (excluding wood products) to Communist China in 2019.

What would happen if Communist China and Bill Gates were to stop selling food to us? What could possibly go wrong?

History of the Globalists

As America becomes accustomed to Collectivists making every decision for us, farmers are forced to comply with intrusive federal regulations. Even the family dog must be tagged as livestock, in case there is a disease outbreak. (source)

Stalin’s Communism killed 20 Million. Source: Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Stalin deliberately starved Seven Million in Ukraine with his forced collectivist (communism) policies to eliminate small farms and use modern agriculture machinery to feed the citizens. Source: The History Place – Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin’s Forced Famine 1932-33
Also see the Stalin quote, below.

Bill Gates’ father was a Eugenicist. Bill Gates, Sr. obituary in the NY Times said he was a director of Planned Parenthood. For more information on the original goals of Planned Parenthood, see my post on Roe v. Wade.

Geo Engineering

The Dimming by GeoEngineeringWatch.org is full length documentary on weather modification Chem trails. Link: The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary ( Geoengineering Watch ) – YouTube

During the 2021 severely cold weather in Texas, temperatures at the North Pole were 33 degrees warmer than the Gulf Coast of Texas. Meteorologically speaking, this anomalous weather could not have been a natural occurrence, and it doesn’t make sense that higher elevations in the area would have warmer temperatures. This could only happen through an endothermic reacting material like chemical ice nucleation, Link: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemically-nucleated-winter-weather/

15,000 to 30,000 cattle died in the 2013 early October blizzard in western South Dakota. Their nostrils frost froze solid. Geo Engineering chemicals explain this endothermic ice nucleation. The cattle death count was later increased to 50,000.

What could possibly go wrong?

Joseph Stalin, Speech on Agrarian Policy — Dec. 27, 1929:

Note: kulaks were family owned farms

{1} The characteristic feature in the work of our Party during the past year is that we, as a Party, as the Soviet power:
    a) have developed an offensive along the whole front against the capitalist elements in the countryside;
    b) that this offensive, as you know, has yielded and continues to yield very appreciable, positive results.

{2} What does this mean? It means that we have passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. It means that we have carried out, and are continuing to carry out, one of the decisive turns in our whole policy.

{3} Until recently the Party adhered to the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks. As you know, this policy was proclaimed as far back as the Eighth Party Congress. It was again announced at the time of the introduction of NEP and at the Eleventh Congress of our Party. We all remember Lenin’s well-known letter [in 1922 in which he] . . . once again returned to the need for pursuing this policy. Finally, this policy was confirmed by the Fifteenth Congress of our Party. And it was this policy that we were pursuing until recently.

{4} Was this policy correct? Yes, it was absolutely correct at the time. Could we have undertaken such an offensive against the kulaks some five years or three years ago? Could we then have counted on success in such an offensive? No, we could not. That would have been the most dangerous adventurism. It would have been a vcry dangerous playing at an offensive. For we should certainly have failed, and our failure would have strengthened the position of the kulaks. Why? Because we did not yet have in the countryside strongpoints in the form of a wide network of state farms and collective farms which could be the basis for a determined offensive against the kulaks. Because a. that time we were not yet able to replace the capitalist production of the kulaks by the socialist production of the collective farms and state farms. . . .

{5} An offensive against the kulaks is a serious matter. It should not be confused with declamations against the kulaks. Nor should it be confused with a policy of pinpricks against the kulaks, which the . . . opposition did its utmost to impose upon the Party. To launch an offensive against the kulaks means that we must smash the kulaks, eliminate them as a class. Unless we set ourselves these aims, an offensive would be mere declamation, pinpricks, phrase-mongering, anything but a real Bolshevik offensive. To launch an offensive against the kulaks means that we must prepare for it and then strike at the kulaks, strike so hard as to prevent them from rising to their feet again. That is what we Bolsheviks call a real offensive. Could we have undertaken such an offensive some five years or three years ago with any prospect of success? No, we could not.

{6} Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.

{7} What would it have meant to launch a determined offensive agains. the kulaks under such conditions? It would have meant certain failure, strengthening the position of the kulaks and being left without grain. That is why we could not and should not have undertaken a determined offensive against the kulaks at that time. . .

{8} But today? What is the position now? Today, we have an adequate material base for us to strike at the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class, and to replace their output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. You know that in 1929 the grain produced on the collective farms and state farms amounts to not less than 400 million poods (200 million poods below the gross output of the kulak farms in 1927). You also know that in 1929 the collective farms and state farms have supplied more than 130 million poods of marketable grain (i.e., more than the kulaks did in 1927). Lastly, you know that in 1930 the gross grain output of the collective farms and state farms will amount to not less than 900 million poods (i.e., more than the gross output of the kulaks in 1927), and their output of marketable grain will be not less than 400 million poods (i.e., incomparably more than the kulaks supplied in 1927).

{9} That is how matters stand with us now, comrades.

{10} There you have the change that has taken place in the economy of our country.

{11} Now, as you see, we have the material base which enables us to replace the kulak output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. It is for this very reason that our determined offensive against the kulaks is now meeting with undeniable success.

{12} That is how an offensive against the kulaks must be carried on, if we mean a genuine and determined offensive and not mere futile declamations against the kulaks.

{13} That is why we have recently passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.

{14} Well, and what about the policy of dekulakization? Can we permit dekulakization in the areas of complete collectivization? This question is asked in various quarters. A ridiculous question! We could not permit dekulakization as long as we were pursuing the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks, as long as we were unable to go over to a determined offensive against the kulaks, as long as we were unable to replace the kulak output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. At that time the policy of not permitting dekulakization was necessary and correct. But now? Now things are different. Now we are able to carry on a determined offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. Now, dekulakization is being carried out by the masses of poor and middle peasants themselves, who are putting complete collectivization into practice. Now, dekulakization in the areas of complete collectivization is no longer just an administrative measure. Now, it is an integral part of the formation and development of the collective farms. Consequently it is now ridiculous and foolish to discourse at length on dekulakization. When the head is off, one does not mourn for the hair.

{15} There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulaks should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for they are sworn enemies of the collective-farm movement.

In The United States

FREEDOM FROM WANT?

Feds Escalate Assault On Dairy Farmers
By Liz Reitzig

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) apparent war on Amish “raw dairy” farmers increased on Dec. 6 when the FDA filed a motion for summary judgment with Pennsylvania judge Lawrence Stengler asking for a permanent injunction against dairy farmer Dan Allgyer to forbid him from selling fresh milk out of state. FDA regulation 21 CFR §1240.61 criminalizes any selling of milk intended to cross state lines.

After a two-year, expensive exhaustive undercover operation, including multiple armed raids on Allgyer’s farm, FDA agents and a team of 10 federal lawyers amassed over 276 pages of evidence allegedly proving what Allgyer openly admits, that he is selling fresh (raw, unpasteurized) milk to customers who knowingly carry the milk across state lines. Thousands of Maryland customers who have been buying from Allgyer for years were the main focus for evidence during the investigation. In spite of the FDA raids and injunction filing, Allgyer has continued to support his customers’ needs for fresh milk and other farm foods, citing his God-given inalienable rights. Like mos tAmish  people, Allgyer is reluctant to participate in the legal system, but he has chosen to respond, and his response claims that the FDA action “has created a serious dilemma” by “violating [his] due process and equal protection under the law,” and he is “prepared to proceed with a public court forum, if necessary.” Should Stengler sign the motion, the injunction would not ban Allgyer  from selling in Pennsylvania, but the Maryland families he supplies would lose their food source and he would lose his out-of-state business and would be subjected to strenuous regulation and unannounced, unlimited, unwarranted inspections, at his expense, including costs of travel, food, lodging and per diems for inspectors. A single inspection could cost as much as $10,000.

Allyger’s response argues that the FDA’s action, though classified as a civil action, is in reality “a quasicriminal action . . . because of the severe sanctions and consequences that could occur as a result of the FDA investigation and the inspection” and as such “requires prior notice of the offense, probable cause and official complaint, which is totally lacking in this case.” Organizers of the D.C. area-buying club Grassfed on the Hill, supplied by Allgyer, helped form the Raw Milk Freedom Riders in support of Allgyer and other farmers like him.

“The freedom riders are a group of consumers challenging the FDA’s regulation by engaging indeliberate civil disobedience. They demand the FDA cease prosecuting farmers and consumers for transporting raw milk across state lines,” says the group’s founder, Karine Bouis-Towe. “The riders have staged two ‘freedom rides.’ On Nov. 1 they took raw milk from Pennsylvania to FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., then on Dec. 8 they transported raw milk from Wisconsin to Chicago, Ill., both times distributing the milk. The FDA declined to prosecute in both cases.”

The action against Allgyer is the latest in a string of FDA persecutions of Amish dairy farmers in recent years.

——

Liz Reitzigis the co-founder of the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, an advocacy group that helps farmers under assault from the government.

U.S. History

When the Constitution was being considered for  ratification, there were debates about the Constitutional clause to regulate interstate commerce.  For a long time people thought the words “regulate commerce among the several states” referred ONLY to promoting commerce, not restricting commerce, after all, “one of the objectives of the Philadelphia Convention was the promotion of commerce” according to an analysis of the Constitution published in 1996 by the Congressional Research Service in Senate Document 103-6. Example: the first agriculture department in Pennsylvania was created to help farmers sell eggs OUTSIDE of Pennsylvania , and to run a state fair, promoting Pennsylvania grown produce. THAT’S IT!  That was the government’s understanding of the Constitution clause “regulating commerce among the several states”

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
— Alexander Hamilton, 1775, The Farmer Refuted

You may be interested in:

Biden said Corn Syrup more dangerous than terrorists.

USDA agricultural census program is a covert surveillance operation to compile government database of food and farm assets – NaturalNews.com

China Owns US

Home – The Grow Network : The Grow Network

ice age farmer | food, abundance, warmth

Something is fishy in the United States

Food disparagement laws

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: