Apple CEO Tim Cook's Full Letter Responding to the FBI's Court Order to Create a Backdoor That Would Circumvent iPhone Security

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

Cook says that as good as the FBI’s intentions are, forcing Apple to create a backdoor into its otherwise heavily protected products doesn’t seem right. “And ultimately,” he concludes, “we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”

The following is a letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook in response to a Judge order for the company to hack the phone of a terrorist who killed 14 in San Bernardino in December.

A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

Arabs Living in Israel are Subject to Military Rule and Laws

Israel takes one more step in Hitler's footsteps — coming to America soon since the Khazars look at American non-Jews as cattle (Goy).

Israeli Lawmakers Approve New Stop and Frisk Laws

February 2, 2016

The Associated Press - Israel's parliament passed a law on Tuesday expanding police powers, allowing them to stop and frisk suspects without probable cause, the latest attempt to crack down on near-daily Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Critics say the law will allow police to racially profile minorities and Arabs.

While previously police could only search people suspected of carrying a weapon, under the new measures officers can search anyone in areas declared by district police commanders to be possible settings for "hostile sabotage activity." They can also search people they suspect might commit violent crime.

Israel's internal security minister Gilad Erdan of the Likud party said the law is "an important enhancement of the police's ability to more effectively battle terrorism and violence."

Arab lawmaker Jamal Zahalka said that it was "clear the main people affected will be Arabs and people who look like Arabs."

Since September, 26 Israelis have been killed in Palestinian attacks. At least 151 Palestinians have died from Israeli fire, including 106 Israel said were attackers.

In October, Israel approved new measures to crack down on violence. Steps approved included allowing police to impose a closure on points of friction or incitement according to security assessments.

Israel also resumed the demolition of homes belonging to Palestinian assailants. On Tuesday, the military said security forces measured the home of Amjad Sukkari, 34, a Palestinian police officer who shot at Israeli soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint Sunday, wounding three before troops shot him dead.

Israel says home demolition deters attacks, but critics say the tactic amounts to collective punishment.

The Feds and State Troopers Shot Oregon Protestor LaVoy Finicum While His Hands Were in the Air, and They Shot Him Some More After He Was Down on the Ground (the Feds and State Troopers Setup a Roadblock, with Snipers in the Trees, and Ambushed Their Vehicle, Shooting at Least 120 Times, But None of the Protestors Touched Their Guns)

Below is the complete video footage of a joint FBI and Oregon State Police traffic stop and OSP officer-involved shooting of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This footage, which has only been edited to blur out aircraft information, was taken by the FBI on 01/26/2016 and released by the FBI on 01/28/2016.



From the female witness that was in the truck with him, the cops shot at them at the first stop while they had their hands out the window but missed, so they took off. That stupid cop walked into the line of the oncoming truck, probably so he could take a shot at the driver. You can clearly see the state cop run in front of the vehicle. LaVoy's vehicle went to go around and then you see the cop JUMP IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK. Not the opposite way around. There was not a shoot out period. Instead, a murder takes place. It was a set up and no traffic violation ever took place. The FEDS are in complete control of any and all information getting out to the public. No one in the group wanted any violence to take place except for the FEDS. REMEMBER THE MOVIE FIRST BLOOD? WE NOW KNOW NOTHING THE FEDS SAY CAN BE TRUSTED. Looks like they shot LaVoy with his hands in the air and then he dropped his hands and turned when he got shot again, grabbing at where he was shot. Where's the dash cam videos or the on ground videos? If he was going to shoot, why didn't he come out shooting? Why did he raise his hands then?

Testimony from Victoria Sharp, who was in the car when LaVoy Finicum was ‪EXECUTED by the Feds:



On YouTube, search "LaVoy Finicum executed."

Eleven people face federal felony charges in Oregon of conspiracy to impede federal officials in their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats in connection with the standoff that began Jan. 2 when a group opposed to federal land policy took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Some holdouts remain at the refuge near Burns, Oregon.

The FBI Ambushes a Group of Oregon Protesters, Killing One and Wounding Another

The FBI said authorities arrested group leader Bundy, 40, his brother Ryan Bundy, 43, Brian Cavalier, 44, Shawna Cox, 59, and Ryan Payne, 32, during a traffic stop Tuesday afternoon on U.S. Highway 395. Authorities said another person, Joseph Donald O’Shaughnessy, 45, was arrested in Burns. The FBI says Bundy and the others arrested face felony charges of conspiracy to impede the duties of federal officials through the use of “force, intimidation, or threats.” The FBI said one individual “who was a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased.” Fifty-year-old Peter Santilli of Cincinnati, Ohio, was arrested at 6:30 p.m. today in Burns. Santilli has been operating an online talk-radio show during the occupation of the wildlife refuge. [Source]

Ammon Bundy Taken Into FBI Custody; LaVoy Finicum Shot Dead by FBI; Ryan Payne Suffers Multiple Gunshot Wounds

January 26, 2016

Oathkeepers - This evening, the FBI made a felony stop on a vehicle carrying Ammon Bundy and several other individuals. After gun fire from the FBI, four individuals were reportedly taken into custody, including Ammon Bundy. Two individuals are reported to have been taken to the Burns hospital, which is currently on lock down.

FBI sources stated that those at the Refuge are currently free to leave unimpeded, implying that there might be action if they do not leave immediately.

UPDATES:

1811L: Blaine Cooper has reportedly assumed leadership at the Refuge and has been told to leave immediately. During a phone call with Pete Santilli, Pete can be overheard saying, “Blaine, please don’t do this.” Blaine is reportedly wanting to make a stand. Women and children are still at the Refuge.

1821L: According to local government officials, Ryan Payne suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was taken to the Burns hospital.

1827L: Awaiting a forthcoming statement from law enforcement regarding the shoot out and arrests.

1844L: KATU News is now reporting that eight occupiers have been taken into custody.

1850L: Pete Santilli and Joe Oshaugnessy have also been arrested.

1857L: Law Enforcement reporting the arrest of the following individuals:

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne — and JJoe O’Shaghnessy in a separate arrest.

1900L: FBI reporting that one of the occupiers is now deceased.

1924L: LaVoy Finicum (pictured below with his wife, Jeanette, and their 11 children) dead.



"LaVoy Finicum is a Northern Arizona Rancher who loves nothing more in life than God, family, and freedom. As he has watched the ever increasing encroachment of government into the lives of the American people he has felt to make a stand for freedom. He has drawn a line in the sand and that line is the Constitution in its original intent. The Constitution of the United States of America is a charter to protect the freedom of man by putting strict limits on government. We are living in a day when that supreme law of the land has been shredded by the very government that took an oath to uphold it. By their actions the Federal Government has become lawless and stalks the liberties of this land under the guise of social justice." [Source]

CLIVEN BUNDY: The arrest of my son should be a 'wake-up call to America'

January 27, 2016

Business Insider - Cliven Bundy — the father of now-arrested Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who were part of the Oregon "militia" that took over a federal wildlife refuge for 25 days — said his son's arrest and the killing of another group member "will be a wake-up call to America."

"This is a total disaster to be happening in America," he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "We have, I'm guessing, federal people killing innocent people. I'll tell you one thing, my sons and those who were there were there to do good, no harm was intended, they would never threaten anybody, they was trying to teach people about the Constitution and trying to help the Hammond family, trying to make sure this type of abuse didn't happen in America and yet, it did."

Ammon, the leader of the self-styled militia occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, was arrested after the FBI conducted a traffic stop. His brother Ryan and five others were in the vehicle at the time of the stop.

Shots were fired during the arrest. One man, Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, was killed, according to a militia spokesman. Officials have not yet publicly confirm Finicum's death.

Ryan suffered a minor gunshot wound during the traffic stop as well, according to The Oregonian. The brothers and four other associates were arrested on scene while another man, Peter Santilli,an independent broadcaster who live-streamed the occupation, was also arrested later (see video below).

BREAKING: Booking photos of Ammon Bundy, 7 others after arrest near Burns. https://t.co/AcqRyP4pd5 #KOIN6News pic.twitter.com/un82wepf95 — Brent Weisberg (@BrentKOIN) January 27, 2016

The group of occupiers was on their way to a community meeting in John Day, Oregon, per KATU News. 

The remaining occupiers at the refuge have no plans to leave, per The Oregonian.

Occupier Jason Patrick at the refuge: We’re all standing here ready to defend our peaceful resolution.

— Les Zaitz (@LesZaitz) January 27, 2016 The standoff in Oregon began January 2 when an armed group led by Ammon took control of the refuge to protest the sentences of two men who set fire to federal land, Dwight and Steven Hammond.

Oregon Noncombatants Labeled "Terrorists" for Political Purposes

Ammon Bundy, the leader of a small, armed group that is occupying a remote national wildlife preserve in Oregon said Tuesday that they will go home when a plan is in place to turn over management of federal lands to locals. Bundy’s general message about federal overreach on public lands is one that resonates in a county where cows outnumber people 14 to 1, and 75 percent of the land is owned by the federal government (see map below). The "government of the people, by the people," "we, the people," who pay the taxes that keep the government running, collectively own the land. Click here for a slideshow.

People of Burns, Ore., conflicted, fearful as wildlife refuge occupation drags on

January 8, 2016

Yahoo News - Wednesday marked the fifth day since a group of armed antigovernment activists led by Ammon Bundy seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, turning what began as a peaceful protest against the arrest of two local ranchers into a potentially violent occupation.

In the days since, local schools have been closed. The FBI, Oregon State Police, and sheriff’s deputies from across the state have descended on Harney County, as have the national media.

The message Harney County Sheriff David Ward and other local leaders have sent to the occupiers has been to relinquish the federal refuge and go home. But among rank and file members of the community, attitudes toward Bundy and his band of pertinacious protesters are more complicated.

After all, it was the heavily protested prison sentences of two of their own local ranchers, convicted on arson charges for setting federal land on fire, that brought the Bundy brigade to this quiet piece of country in the first place. And while most people are quick to clarify that they don’t support the group’s tactics, Bundy’s general message about federal overreach on public lands is one that resonates in a county where cows outnumber people 14 to 1, and 75 percent of the land is owned by the federal government.

A group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom said it wants an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land after Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, reported back to prison Monday. Ammon Bundy said the group felt it had the support of the local community. 

Ammon Bundy, one of the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, speaks to reporters during a news conference at Malheur … Click here for the slideshow.

Essentially, the protesters have created a sort of conflict of conscience that appears to be driving a wedge between them and the people they claim to want to help.

Grasty, for example, said he was “embarrassed” and “angry” about the heavy law enforcement presence at the courthouse Wednesday and told the community members in the room, “If you feel the same way, that anger needs to be pointed in one direction only: at Mr. Bundy and his friends.”

But Commissioner Dan Nichols, on the other hand, wasn’t so sure.

Nichols, who said he paid a visit to the wildlife refuge and left with a vastly different perception of the situation than the one he’d had going in.

“I gotta say, with the fear that’s in this community, these people are respectful, courteous,” Nichols said, referring to Bundy’s group. Nichols said he was welcomed onto the property and had a “pleasant” discussion with Bundy before asking him to consider leaving.

“We’ve expressed locally many, many times that we agree with the same concerns, but we do not agree with the methods being done,” Nichols said. “We appreciate their support but we also want them to go home.”

At the same time, Nichols argued, “Those people up there aren’t a threat.”

“In fairness to them, they’re frustrated and angered Americans just like all of us,” he said. “They’ve been pushed and prodded and frustrated to the point that they’ve gone a step beyond where we as a community are willing to go.”

And despite their questionable methods, Nichols noted, the activists have managed to draw national attention to issues concerning the Western United States.

“There’s an overreach of government and an overreach of regulations,” he said.

Google Denies Claim That It Will Censor Palestinian YouTube Videos on Israel's Behalf; Israel Prevents Free Speech by Shutting Down Second Palestinian Radio Station

Israeli security detain The Associated Press photographer Nasser Shiyoukhi during a Palestinian protest in Yatta in the West Bank on Saturday. Shiyoukhi was released without charge after Saturday’s incident. (photo credit: AP Photo)

Google Denies Israel’s Claims That It Will Allow Censorship Of Palestinian Videos

The Internet giant says the meeting with Israeli officials was simply “one of many that we have with policymakers from different countries to explain our policies on controversial content.” 

December 1, 2015

Mint Press News - After a misleading press release suggested they’d bowed to pressure from apartheid Israeli officials, Google representatives denied that they agreed to allow censorship of Palestinian videos on YouTube and other Google websites.

The news of Israeli officials’ interactions with Google came after Palestinians have used YouTube to expose violence by illegal Israeli settlers and members of the Israeli Defense Forces, including planting knives on executed Palestinian teenagers.

According to Saed Bannoura, a reporter from the International Middle East Media Center, a Hebrew-language press release published last week on Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website claimed that ministry officials met with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and Jennifer Oztzistzki, director of Public Policy for Google, who agreed to allow the censorship of videos published by Palestinians on YouTube and other websites controlled by the Internet giant.

However, after the agreement was widely reported in the media, a Google representative issued the following statement:

“Following media reports about a meeting last week between Google / YouTube executives and the Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, we wanted to clarify that this meeting was one of many that we have with policymakers from different countries to explain our policies on controversial content, flagging and removals. 

The Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs has corrected its original announcement which, in error, suggested there had been an agreement with Google to establish ‘a mechanism to monitor online materials.’”

Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, claimed Palestinians are using social media to “indoctrinate” children, according to a Nov. 24 press release on the Israeli ministry’s website. She continued: “We are engaged daily in confronting incitement to violence, a task which can benefit greatly from the cooperation of those companies that are involved in social media.”

In 2008, YouTube banned videos which incite others to commit acts of violence, regardless of the nationality of the person publishing the video. Activists were alarmed by the news that Google might have granted special digital abilities to Israeli officials, as Palestinians more frequently use YouTube and other social media sites to expose how the Israeli army attempts to  justify the violence it commits against Palestinian protesters.

Writing on Thursday for his blog Tikun Olam, Richard Silverstein, an Israel-Palestine affairs analyst for MintPress News, cautioned against jumping to conclusions about Israel’s pronouncements of impending Internet censorship.

“There are so many problems with Hotovely’s claims, it’s hard to know where to start,” Silverstein wrote, adding:

“I strongly doubt Google has agreed to any formal arrangement that could lead to restricting video content. But if they have, it would be very important to know this.

Israel shuts second Hebron radio station

November 20, 2015

AFP - Israeli forces Saturday raided and shut down a Palestinian radio station accused of incitement in the West Bank city of Hebron, the army said, in the second such case this month.

Soldiers entered the offices of Al-Khalil radio overnight and handed the station a six-month order to close, said Ezz Haddad, its head of programming.

"Al-Khalil radio station has repeatedly broadcast content which promotes and encourages terror and acts of violence against Israeli civilians and security forces," the army said in a statement.

The station's Facebook page posted pictures of heavily armed Israeli forces arriving at the offices and of alleged damage.

"They took the computers, the communication equipment, everything," Haddad told AFP.

The station was offline on Saturday morning.

Citizens Can Record Police on the Street or in a Public Place

Charges dropped against student arrested while taping police

November 20, 2015

AP - Criminal charges were dropped Friday against a suburban New York college student arrested while taking a video of two friends being arrested.

Charges of resisting arrest, obstruction and drug possession were dismissed against Thomas Demint, a 21-year-old Long Island college student, defense attorney Kenneth Mollins told The Associated Press. A spokesman for the Suffolk County district attorney confirmed the case was dropped during a court proceeding Friday morning "in the interest of justice," but declined to comment further.

Police arrested Demint in May 2014 after he recorded video depicting officers slamming the mother of his two friends to the ground because they said she tried to interfere in one of her sons' arrest. Earlier in the video, the woman is hit by a stun gun.

"My client is ecstatic that justice was done after 18 months," said Mollins, who scheduled a Monday press conference to discuss plans to file a $2 million lawsuit against county officials, claiming false arrest.

A county spokeswoman declined to comment, saying officials do not discuss pending litigation.

"He felt he was put in a position where people automatically thought he did something wrong," Mollins said of Demint.

Civil liberties experts say Demint's arrest is part of a growing trend of citizen videographers getting arrested after trying to record police behavior.

Demint came forward last summer to discuss his arrest; he said he had previously been afraid to speak publicly about the case fearing retribution from police.

"I didn't do anything wrong. I was just there to videotape," Demint told reporters.

A criminal complaint alleged Demint was "hostile, combative and using profanity toward the arresting officer and intentionally attempted to prevent a lawful arrest by walking away and refused to comply with verbal commands as the officer attempted to put handcuffs on him."

The eight-minute video does not depict officers arresting Demint, who said he had stopped recording moments before he was tackled by three officers. He claims the officers attempted to erase the video from his phone but mistakenly erased another video.

U.S. Government's Favorite Lie About Spying: Mass Surveillance Has Been Successful in Stopping Threats Yet Has Been Ineffective in Stopping Real Attacks Because of Privacy Advocates and Whistleblowers

MUST READ: ISIS : A CIA Creation to Justify War Abroad and Repression at Home

I have little doubt that ISIS is used as a tool to further the occult elite’s agenda, including invading Syria and justifying police state surveillance in the West. After guilting Western countries into accepting thousands of Syrian refugees, an Islamist attack causes fear, hatred and distrust towards Muslims in those very countries. Things are about to get complicated. Let’s look back at the concrete effects of ISIS this year.

1. Justified the invasion of Syria, finally destroying its status as a regional force;
2. Accelerated the mass exodus of Syrians towards the West;
3. Opened the floodgates of Syrian refugees around the Western world (boosted by the picture of a dead boy);
4. Caused widespread panic in the Western world with Paris terror attack, justifying tighter monitoring and police state tactics. [Source]

Typical "progressive" response: "The government has to spy on us to prevent anarchy."

The US government is already lying like crazy about surveillance after the Paris attacks

November 16, 2015

The Verge - At a Center for Strategic & International Studies talk today, CIA director John Brennan renewed one of the government's favorite lies about spying: that mass surveillance has been successful in stopping a bunch of mysterious threats while it is simultaneously too ineffective to stop real attacks, because of privacy advocates and whistleblowers.

Here's what Brennan said:

In the past several years because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists there have been some policy and legal and other actions taken that make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging. I do hope that this is going to be a wake up call, particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence and security service is doing...

You're probably going to hear this lie furiously repeated in the coming weeks and months as security hawks in the US and Europe march toward another ground war in Asia, and renew their calls for a radically strengthened surveillance state.

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept has thoroughly documented the genesis of this lie, but here's the short version: the government can't have it both ways on security. It can't ask that companies and individuals strengthen their defenses against attacks while at the same time demanding companies like Apple and Google to sabotage their users by giving the government the means to break encryption.

None of the NSA's capabilities have been diminished yet

The truth is that we've only begun to reform a small part of the mass surveillance apparatus in the United States; only telephone spying has been limited so far, and the NSA still has a broad reach across most forms of electronic communications. As Marcy Wheeler pointed out earlier today in response to Brennan's remarks, the US hasn't even shut down any of the NSA's controversial programs yet! And other countries are stepping up electronic surveillance authority, so it's not clear what Brennan is talking about when he says that "policy and legal actions" have made surveillance of terrorists more challenging. Is he talking about the sweeping law France passed in July that dramatically expanded the country's surveillance powers?

The US government has not provided a credible story about the effectiveness of mass surveillance. As Greenwald notes, officials have been clamoring about the threat of encryption for more than 20 years, so the idea that terrorists aren't already aware of surveillance countermeasures is preposterous.

We've also known since the 9/11 Commission submitted its report that the government's inability to foil the largest and most sophisticated terrorist attack in history was based on its failure to share and analyze information, not because it was unable to scoop up everything that happens on the internet in real-time.

Terrorism's greatest threat is its ability to provoke us into harming ourselves through fear and haste. Don't fall for lazy horror stories from people who want to destroy privacy on the internet for everyone.

Authorities Are Using Paris Attacks To Rush New Mass Surveillance Laws

November 18, 2015

Vigilant Citizen - While democratic systems usually take months (if not years) to pass new laws and legislation, it only took a few days after the Paris attacks to slap honest citizens with more surveillance laws. Several organizations are indeed capitalizing on the fear and panic caused by the attacks to bring forth a brand new agenda that takes a bold new step towards total government surveillance. What’s worse: Leaked information proves that authorities were waiting on a terror attack to go forward with their plan.

In a leaked e-mail written by Robert S. Litt, the intelligence community’s top lawyer during the month August, the plan is clearly outlined: There is a lack of support for the banning of encrypted communications but a terror attack could quickly turn the tide.

“Although the legislative environment is very hostile today, it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.

There is value keeping our options open for such a situation.” – Washington Post, Obama faces growing momentum to support widespread encryption

Only a few months after this e-mail, a terror attack occurs in Paris. Only a few hours after the attacks, news  strangely blamed “encrypted communications”. Only days after the attacks, officials are calling for…the banning of encrypted communications.

French President to Extend 'State of Emergency' for Three Months: 1,500 Heavily-armed Soldiers in Body Armour Descend on Paris

France Considers Extending State of Emergency Laws, Which Historically Suppress Muslims

November 15, 2015

Mic - Following the gruesome terrorist attacks in Paris, President François Hollande immediately declared a state of emergency, tightened France's borders and ordered 1,500 French troops to descend on Paris — temporary measures for extreme times.

But foreign correspondents and the French press report that Hollande will ask for his country's state of emergency, which he declared on Friday, to be extended for three months. The bill will be presented by the cabinet on Wednesday, Le Figaro reports, and Parliament will have to decide whether to extend the state of emergency — as it does with any state of emergency lasting over 12 days, under French law.

President Hollande will also ask for the law to be amended or altered, likely because the law as it stands gives the state incredibly broad powers to suppress the public.

The state of emergency also allows the government to set up curfews, and in the past it has been used to curfew just certain kinds of people. Notably, those people have been Muslims.

Sudden and extreme power: In many countries, laws governing a state of emergency are used in cases of natural disasters, declarations of war or civil unrest — in that regard, France's state of emergency seems appropriate. But France's laws about what the government can do in that state are specific and severe.

A state of emergency allows police to make home searches without warrants and set up blockades. The government can set up "protection areas" in one space and drive people out of public in another. They can close public events, prevent theaters from opening and exercise control over the press off "all kinds," whether that's print, radio or otherwise.

The only thing more drastic would be to declare a state of "siege," which would hand over power to the military.

The state of emergency also allows the government to set up curfews, and in the past it has been used to curfew only certain kinds of people. Notably, those people have been Muslims.

A history of tension with Muslims: The law was drafted in 1955 to deal with Algerian separatists and has only been used on two notable occasions — both of which had some element of policing Muslims.

Mom Sues Cops for Punching Her in the Face During Arrest While Her Kids Looked On

Video of woman's terrifying arrest could land cops in hot water

October 5, 2015

SheKnows - Cindy Hahn describes it as her "most horrific day": A seemingly innocuous exchange between her and a police officer escalated, until she was on the ground, being punched in the face. A bystander caught the whole thing on camera, and now she may finally get some justice.

Hahn was leaving a birthday party in 2013 with her 7- and 11-year-old children when, she says, she passed a police officer standing near a car, blaring its alarm, and asked him what was going on. The police officer allegedly responded by telling Ms. Hahn to "mind [her] own f***ing business," prompting the mom to call the nonemergency police line to complain about the officer's behavior.

Instead the officer followed Hahn as she got into her car, and pulled her over immediately, ostensibly for a seat belt violation, a citation Hahn maintains she never received. She was asked to exit the vehicle, and that was when things got out of control: The video above shows Hahn, pinned to the ground, screaming for help over and over again while onlookers ask, "What are you doing to her?" Another officer arrives on the scene, but instead of de-escalating the situation, it appears he joins in, punching Hahn in the face "with a closed fist," according to court documents.

The video is shocking — there's no doubt about that. The fact that her children could only look on from the back seat of the car while their mother was beaten makes it worse, but by far the scariest part is that before the video surfaced, Hahn was facing charges of felony battery on a peace officer, fighting a court battle that ultimately lasted two years.

Those charges were finally dropped when the video surfaced, making it clear that Hahn — and not the two officers — was the victim in this altercation and not the instigator, as they had initially alleged.

This isn't the first time a bystander has affected change just by switching on their phone's camera. We've seen a number of instances like this in recent years, and the reaction to these videos is practically universal: shock and outrage.
 
That's because with the technology we all have in our pockets and use every day, these victims have something they wouldn't have had in years past: a perfectly accurate witness to their ordeals. A camera can't forget details or be intimidated or confuse a timeline.

It's one thing to hear about something like this, but it's a completely different thing to see it for yourself. In the past, an onlooker couldn't do much but witness what was happening right in front of them. They might try to intervene, which could be risky, or they might report what they saw, which could be easily discounted or ignored. Now, we all have a way to help, and we carry it with us every day.

In this instance, it's what's going to hopefully get Cindy Hahn and her family the justice they rightly deserve.

Germany Initiates Move to Ban GMO Crops

Germany starts move to ban GMO crops: ministry letter

August 24, 2015

Reuters - Germany has initiated a move to stop the growing of genetically modified crops under new European Union rules, documents seen by Reuters showed on Monday.

German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt has informed German state governments of his intention to tell the EU that Germany will make use of new "opt-out" rules to stop GMO crop cultivation even if varieties have been approved by the EU, a letter from the agriculture ministry seen by Reuters shows.

A new EU law approved in March cleared the way for new GMO crops to be approved after years of previous deadlock. But the law also gave individual countries the right to opt out by banning GMO crops even after they have been approved as safe by the European Commission.

Widely-grown in the Americas and Asia, GMO crops have divided opinion in Europe. Britain is among those in favor of them, while France and Germany are among those opposed.

Previously, when the EU approved crops as safe to produce they had to be permitted for cultivation in all EU states.

In the letter, the ministry stressed that Schmidt is continuing a previously-announced policy to keep a ban on GMOs in Germany.

Under the new EU rules, countries have until Oct. 3, 2015, to inform the Commission that they wish to opt out of new EU GMO cultivation approvals, the ministry letter said.

Schmidt has asked German state authorities to say by Sept. 11 whether their region should be included in the opt-out, the letter said.

New Federal Database Will Hold Individual Credit Scores, Employment Records, Healthcare, Education of Americans

Report: Obama Setting Up Secret 'Racial Database'

July 18, 2015

Newsmax - The Obama administration is collecting vast amounts of personal data on Americans by race to create a huge database for the goal of "racial and economic justice," according to a report by a fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

The data includes information that would document disparities between minorities and whites in such areas as healthcare, education, financial lending, and neighborhood quality, said Paul Sperry in a report for The New York Post.

 

Calling it "an Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics," Sperry said the data would fuel a "permanent network of discrimination databases" that could be used by civil-rights lawyers and other advocates "to make 'disparate-impact' cases" against school systems, banks, and employers.

President Barack Obama's goal is to have the database ready before he leaves office in early 2017 — and all the information would be posted online.

Baltimore 'Official' Says by Depriving an Entire Race of Civil Rights, We Have Paved a Permissible Path for All Future Brutalities, Including Those Inflicted by Public Servants Paid to Protect Us All

Baltimore Officials Clarify That Civil Rights Laws Don't Actually Apply to Black People

April 29, 2015

Huffington Post - Following a night of riots beginning in the Mondawmin neighborhood and stretching to Baltimore's Oriole Park at Camden Yards, city officials today, flanked by members of the National Guard, came out and openly admitted that laws protecting civil rights don't apply to black people.

"Look," the official said, "we've clearly marginalized this group of people for decades, so my announcement that we're excluding black citizens from the protections guaranteed by civil rights laws should come as no surprise to anyone here. I'm just making it official."

When confronted with the accusation that black Americans have been unfair targets of excessive police brutality, the official demonstrated his command of logic by stating:

"The riots in Baltimore are a byproduct of income inequality--a phenomenon observed along racial lines--and income inequality is a byproduct of capitalism, and capitalism is the foundation of our great democracy. So, we can conclude that excessive police brutality against black Americans is a pillar of our country's democratic principles."

The official agreed that violent riots--such as those sparked by the death of Freddie Gray, while in police custody--are not a solution to the problem of widespread civil rights violations, but that:

"Police brutality is, in fact, perfectly legal, in light of what I've laid out here today. By formally announcing the exclusion of an entire race from the protections afforded by civil rights laws, we have paved a clear, permissible path for all future brutalities, including those inflicted by public servants paid to protect us all. Not that legality or the concept of respectful treatment of our fellow humans were ever effective deterrents to police brutality before. This just keeps it all above-board." 

The official continued: 

"Speaking of infringing on rights," "these riots are infringing on my right to enjoy an Orioles game."

Pennsylvania Police Officer Charged with Criminal Homicide After Shooting an Unarmed Motorist in the Back as He Lay Facedown After a Traffic Stop

Officer charged with killing unarmed driver lying facedown

March 24, 2015

AP - A Pennsylvania police officer was charged Tuesday with criminal homicide after investigators concluded she shot an unarmed motorist in the back as he lay facedown after a traffic stop over an expired inspection sticker.

Authorities accused Hummelstown police Officer Lisa J. Mearkle of shooting 59-year-old David Kassick twice on Feb. 2 without legal justification. She was released on $250,000 bail.

Her attorney, Brian Perry, said Mearkle acted in self-defense, and he warned the case could cause police officers to hesitate in high-pressure situations.

"She felt like she had to do what she did," Perry said. "This person was being commanded, begged, 'show me your hands,' and he kept going to his waist."

Authorities said Mearkle had attempted to pull over Kassick for expired inspection and emissions stickers before he sped away. She caught up to Kassick near his sister's home where he had been living for a short time.

He got out and ran before Mearkle incapacitated him with a stun gun, held in her left hand. He was on the ground when she shot him twice in the back with the gun in her right hand, police said.

Mearkle, 36, told investigators she fired because he would not show her his hands and she thought he was reaching into his jacket for a gun. Perry said she did not know Kassick before the shooting.

The offense of criminal homicide encompasses a range of charges, from misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter to felony first-degree murder. Prosecutors often narrow the charge later in the process, about the time when defendants are formally arraigned.

The stun gun contained a camera that recorded audio and video from portions of the encounter, and District Attorney Ed Marsico called it the strongest evidence in the case.

He said it appeared Kassick had been trying to remove the stun-gun probe from his back.

"At the time Officer Mearkle fires both rounds from her pistol, the video clearly depicts Kassick lying on the snow covered lawn with his face toward the ground," according to the arrest affidavit. "Furthermore, at the time the rounds are fired nothing can be seen in either of Kassick's hands, nor does he point or direct anything toward Officer Mearkle."

Cop Arrests Elderly Veteran for Walking with Golf Club as a Cane and Falsely Accuses Him of Swinging It at Her; Cop Randomly Pepper Sprays Pedestrians in Seattle [Video]

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces. President Eisenhower warned us. Now here it is. The Military Industrial Complex. TheWAR MACHINE has taken over the U.S. streets too now in the form of POLICE.

Insects with Modified DNA Close to Being Set Loose in Residential Neighborhood in Florida Keys

Millions of GMO insects could be released in Florida Keys

January 26, 2015

AP - Millions of genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the Florida Keys if British researchers win approval to use the bugs against two extremely painful viral diseases.

Never before have insects with modified DNA come so close to being set loose in a residential U.S. neighborhood.

"This is essentially using a mosquito as a drug to cure disease," said Michael Doyle, executive director of the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, which is waiting to hear if the Food and Drug Administration will allow the experiment.

Putin Calls Monsanto a Terrorist Organization

Is Putin Right to Call Monsanto a Terrorist Organization and Ban GMOs?

May 25, 2014

The Motley Fool - Russia has high hopes for organic farming -- maybe a little too high. 

Sometime before wrestling bears and after hunting tigers, Russian President Vladimir Putin found a few minutes to denounce the use of genetically modified crops (again).  

While Russia was widely believed to allow the use of biotech crops shortly after joining the World Trade Organization, the country believes it has found a way to remain GMO-free without violating its obligations as a member nation.

A new bill introduced to the Russian parliament would treat producers of biotech crops from companies such as Monsanto (NYSE: MON ), The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW ), and Syngenta (NYSE: SYT ) as criminals -- with fines comparable to terrorism.

As co-author of the bill Kirill Cherkasov told RT:

When a terrorist act is committed, only several people are usually hurt. But GMOs may hurt dozens and hundreds. The consequences are much worse. And punishment should be proportionate to the crime.

If the proposed bill becomes law, punishment could range from 15 years to life. That seems a bit harsh to me and, when coupled with numerous anti-science quotes and ideologies from the bill and its supporters, I just don't see how a policy could be sustainable scientifically or economically (what Russia really cares about) speaking. Additionally, most crops grown in Russia today (wheat, barley, sunflower, oats, potatoes) don't have GM varieties. That's good news for Monsanto and Syngenta shareholders, but Russia claims that it can grow enough organic food to never need biotech crops. Are those bold claims actually true?

Can Russia farm without engineered crops?

Russia is free to ban biotech crops, but it should do so with more accurately worded proposals. I'd start by scrapping the proposed bill or amending it to a point where it is generally unrecognizable from its initial submission. Then, Russia should insert language that speaks to (1) its concerns that GMOs are not sufficiently tested and (2) its belief that organic farming practices can sustain the country on their own.

After doing that, Russia must come to grips with reality.

Despite being nearly twice as large as the United States, Russia has substantially less arable land, irrigated land, and land dedicated to permanent crops. Consider the following land area comparison between Russia and the United States:

	Russia	United States
Total Land (sq. km)	17,098,242	9,826,675
Arable Land (sq. km)	1,215,685	1,600,765
Irrigated Land (sq. km)	43,460	266,440
Permanent Crops (sq. km)	17,098	25,549

2013 figures. Source: CIA World Factbook.

The United States is simply more efficient with its land and enjoys better geography than Russia, which suffers from a lack of proper soils and climates (too cold or too dry) for productive agriculture despite its size. Russian farmland is also threatened by "soil contamination from improper application of agricultural chemicals, groundwater contamination from toxic waste, and abandoned stocks of obsolete pesticides," according to the CIA World Factbook. Sounds pretty organic to me.

Russia intends to feed Europe with the majority of its organic food needs within the next decade, but it's far from being a global organic powerhouse. A recent Bloomberg analysis of 165 countries ranked by organic farmland failed to place the country in the top 20. That means Russia ranks behind the Czech Republic, Greece, and all eight (yes, eight) farmers and ranchers in Falkland Islands when it comes to organic farmland for raising livestock or cultivating crops. Indeed, a 2011 report from the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements estimated the value of Russia's organic products at only $60 million-$80 million.

Additionally, Russia simply doesn't support its farmers as well as its European counterparts. While traditional farming is subsidized to the tune of $410-$545 per hectare in the European Union, organic farming captures federal support of nearly $1,230 per hectare. The Russian Ministry of Agriculture offers domestic farmers just $200 per hectare for producing organic foods. Subsidies may be relative to the economics of each country, but Russia isn't doing much to compete with European organic farmers.

While the United States smoking Russia in terms of agricultural efficiency is bad enough, it gets worse when you consider that the Russian economy is substantially more reliant on agriculture. Consider the following economic comparison between Russia and the United States:

	Russia	United States
GDP	$2.553 trillion	$16.72 trillion
GDP From Agriculture	$110 billion	$180 billion
Total Labor Force	75.29 million people	155.4 million people
Labor Force Dedicated to Agriculture	7.3 million	1.09 million

2013 figures. Source: CIA World Factbook.

How is the United States so efficient with its agricultural land? There's strong support for farmers through various government policies, and there has been strong and constant investment in next-generation technologies. Like it or not, some of those next-generation technologies include biotech crops, which alone accounted for 0.9% of American GDP in 2012.

Russia will regret banning biotech crops

Putin and other political leaders can say whatever they want about the atrocities of biotech crops sold by Monsanto and Syngenta, but a quick investigation into the economics doesn't support claims that organic food is ready to supply the nation's food, not to mention the food for other countries. There may very well be a European market for Russia's future organic food products, but it's difficult to imagine the Russian economy enjoying much of a boost from organic farming anytime soon, if ever, given its dire state today.

At a time when Russia should be investing heavily in next-generation agricultural technologies such as biotech crops to catch up to leading nations, it seems to be taking a step backwards with old-world beliefs. I don't see agricultural policies in Russia having much, if any, material effect on biotech seed producers. Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow Chemical shareholders have no reason to worry about Putin.

Michigan Delegates That It is Legal for Local Governments to Create and Enforce Ordinances Banning Farm Animals from Residential Zones

Michigan Bans Animals On Small Farms?

Governments could ban goats, chickens and even bee hives on properties where there are 13 homes within an eighth of a mile of a livestock property or another home within 250 feet of the property, under the Commission’s ruling. Eighty percent or more of the state lives in non-rural, non-agricultural zoned areas. What was NOT stated at the hearings was the fact that your livestock facility must setback off the road 1500 feet -- this is written in the body of the GAAMP. Also, your own house may or may not count as one of the 13 houses.

May 9, 2014

Off the Grid News - Many Michigan residents will lose their right to keep livestock on their own property due to a new ruling from the state’s Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The Commission ruled April 28 that local governments have the right to ban livestock from any area zoned residential in the state.

The action will “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals,” Gail Philbin of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live. The Right to Farm Act is a state law designed to protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits and zoning regulations. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm (RTF) Act does not apply to homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

“It’s all ‘Big Farm,’ and it’s ‘Big Farm’ deciding against the little farm,” Kim White, who raises chickens and rabbits, said of the Commission’s vote. “They don’t want us little guys feeding ourselves. They want us to go all to the big farms. They want to do away with small farms and I believe that is what’s motivating it.”
“The Commission is essentially taking sides in the marketplace,” Philbin said.

Bees, Chickens and Goats Now Illegal?

Governments could ban goats, chickens and even bee hives on properties where there are 13 homes within an eighth of a mile of a livestock property or another home within 250 feet of the property, under the Commission’s ruling, Michigan Public Radio reported.

“I believe we have over 100 communities in Michigan who have ordinances on the books against chickens and bees and other things, and they will be able to continue to move forward with those,” Jamie Clover Adams, the director of Michigan’s Department and Rural Development, told Michigan Radio.

The rationale for the Commission’s action is that officials are afraid there would be political pressure to repeal the Right to Farm to Act in order to stop backyard farming, Michigan Radio reported.

Opponents of the rule change have not laid out a course of action yet, although some backyard farmers are considering a legal challenge. Other possible courses of action include legislation in the state legislature and a ballot initiative.

Regulatory Limbo 

Some homesteaders in Michigan could find themselves in a complete regulatory limbo because of the Commission’s action. Blogger, writer and organic farmer Michelle Regalado Deatrick does not know if she’ll be able to keep her livestock, because about half of her 80-acre farm may not be zoned for farm animals.

“We’re building up a mixed production farm, planning to farm during retirement, and we have a permit in hand for a livestock facility,” Deatrick said, “but have waited with building until we were sure of what the GAAMP changes would be. Now we’re having to reconsider our business plans and may sell the farm and buy a farm in a more rural area with definite [Right To Farm] protection, or move to another state that’s more welcoming and protective of small farm rights.”

GAAMP refers to the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices, a set of guidelines put out by the state of Michigan. The current GAAMP designates many small farms as Category 3 lands where livestock might not be allowed.

“Category 3 sites may be zoned for agriculture, but are generally not suitable for livestock production facilities,” the GAAMP states. “They may be suitable for livestock facilities with less than 50 animal units.”

Another problem is that local governments in Michigan are under no obligation to follow the GAAMP. It is simply a set of guidelines.

Michigan is one of several areas where property owners have had to fight for the right to raise food on their own land. Off the Grid News has reported that property owners in Florida and Quebec have been barred from planting vegetable gardens.

Comments from OffTheGridNews:

"Farms now exist on the whim of a local ordinance.Perhaps a bigger impact this change has is that it reduces (eliminates) the state oversight of the largest agriculture processors, CAFOs. CAFOs are now “self-certifying” for compliance to state and federal rules.The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) clearly support only corporate agriculture. The director of MDARD has been openly hostile towards the small farmer while at the same time travelling the country and world to promote Michigan Ag. MDARD wants to sell product in China while denying local access to healthy food. Most ironically is that small farming in Michigan is now potentially illegal (criminal) just as the USDA is promoting small farming for local food sourcing under the Farm Bill." - Randy Zeilinger, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

"Fight against the underlying problem…the main problem…the cause of all this nonsense. FIGHT AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 being purposed by the United Nations will take all our freedoms, our land, our rights. They will force us all to give up our properties, and move to metropolis areas to live and work. No personal transportation other than bicycles and your feet. The only people that will live outside the metropolis areas will be the farmers growing our food [on corporate-owed farms]. Everything else will be contained within the metropolis and have to abide by their rules/regulations/government. They work disguised by sustainable/green cloak. They are working thru local governments in underhanded and deceptive manner. All our presidents from 1962 to present have signed on to their plan. If you don’t believe me…look it up on the net…I HATE AGENDA 21 AND WILL DO ALL I CAN TO STOP IT." - Agenda Hater, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

"This is all part of Agenda 21′s ICLEI program. Many states, governors, mayors and municipalities have signed off on this treasonous program. The ones that have are being paid well to do so. This program basically sells out the Constitution in lieu of it’s own Charters and resolutions. This is a United Nations program. The “new world order” everyone’s been gossiping about–this is IT! Read through the law fast and get ready to protest because pretty soon, we’ll lose our rights to everything AND lose our land. Part of this program’s ultimate goal is to ‘stack and pack’ people into tightly grouped high-rise city settlements and BAN people from the majority of the land in the USA claiming it for ‘sustainability.’ Dictating what people can and can’t do on their land is only the beginning!" - EFHerne, Off the Grid News, May 3, 2014

"I live in Michigan and we had a right to have small farms with small animals like chickens, goats, rabbits, and to sell eggs, etc. there can no longer be any bee keepers either. We no longer have that right if there is 13 houses within 1/8 of a mile OR 250 feet from your property line. I agree with the 13 houses ruling but the 250 feet from the property line will hurt a lot of people. That includes property on each side of them, behind them, and across the road. Now my question is: Shouldn’t there should also be a ban on dogs? I mean, they make a barking noise and poop in everyone’s yards!! So what is the difference?? Is this law only because you are providing for your family food to eat and have an outside small building. WAIT UNTIL GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU CAN NO LONGER HAVE A GARDEN EITHER!! You can be sure that is next. Oh, ya, and nobody can have a septic system in the country either. So everybody has to give their home and property to the government and move to the city!! You folks need to read up on the UN Agenda 21 World government Agenda." - Stand 4 right, OffTheGridNews, May 6, 2014

"You need to worry just a tad. this isnt’ happening only in MI, it is happening across the nation. IF they control the guns, you can’t fight back, IF they control the healthcare, you can die, and IF they control the food source, you will be in deep straights. Now this is not a conspiracy theory, check what is happening with AGENDA 21…….the UN’s plan for globalization. Check to see what is happening with ‘the new world order plans……..connect the dots……..there is much to be aware of. And it has nothing to do with what you think………don’t panic get busy and write to your congressman, representative and use your voice." - becky, OffTheGridNews, May 5, 2014

"The Right to Farm Act was designed to prevent new suburbanites living next door to pre-existing farmers in areas where the suburbs grew up around the farm from complaining about the sounds and smells of their food supply living next door. If you move to the country, expect it to look and sound and smell like the country or go elsewhere. It really had nothing to do with the urban areas where people wanted to take their double lot and raise chickens and have a goat (it’s usually against zoning laws). But those 'urban homesteaders' saw the Right to Farm Bill as a means to protect them. If these changes are going to leave the authentic small farmers whose farms predated the surrounding area’s development back where they were, without protection from idiot new suburbanite neighbors and wealthy developers, then those changes need to be cancelled." - Betterhave, OffTheGridNews, May 5, 2014

"It is unfortunate that most people, whether they live in town or out in the country, are all being made to conform to a standard because a hand full of others decide to complain. If you read the rules that have just been passed, you’ll notice that this affects anyone who is zoned residential. Mind you, I live out in the country on a dirt road, bordered on three sides by vast farmed fields. I have one neighbor across the road who owns 15 acres that is farmed as well as a neighbor about a half a mile away that lives on a 30 acre plot. But, because our zoning has been changed to residential recently (and very quietly as no one was notified that this was happening), none of us will have the ability to own even one chicken if these new rules are enforced. If the complainers are allowed to run the show, if law makers run scared of these complainers, and if big agri-business is wiling to throw a bunch of money into the ring to ensure that we are all forced into buying food from them, well, law hasn’t improved our lives, but worsened it beyond repair. There are going to be a lot of people blindsided by this ruling who have lived for many years with the family pet horse, small flock of sheep kept for hand spinning purposes, goats kept for milking, or chickens kept for eggs that will be affected by all of this foolishness as the zoning is changed to conform to someone’s warped sense of controlling the masses. If rules must be put into place to control farming practices for people who live in town or suburban areas, please change the law to focus ONLY on these areas and not the entire State of Michigan.For those of you who do complain over the noisy rooster next door or a stinky manure pile, you have the ability to move away from the noise or the smell much easier than the farm can move the animals, buildings, fencing, equipment, manure compost facilities, etc." - Mousehunter, OffTheGridNews, May 2, 2014

"Let’s do math. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. That means one eighth of a mile is 660 feet – but it would be a square 1/8 of a mile, so 660×660 = 435,600 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre, so that would be 13 houses spread out over 10 acres. That is not urban. That is 3/4 acre lots – this is suburban type zoning – but here in NJ that would be the ex-burbs. Most suburban NJ communities allow 3 or 4 chickens at the most on a lot that size (no roosters), with 2 acres in many places being required for livestock (like one horse). You can easily have 4 hives (my main business) on 1/4 acre. Many NJ communities have NO regulations regarding animals on private property. So I regard this ruling as being extremely restricting. NJ is actually going in the reverse direction right now – we are the most densely populated state in the USA, but the NJ legislature is expanding right-to-farm." - Leeann, OffTheGridNews, May 2, 2014

"The price of freedom, aside from the greatest sacrifice of lives, is that a neighbor may exercise it in a way that you don’t like. If you can’t own animals on your property you don’t own the land. If you can’t own the land you don’t have freedom. I remember when the Michigan Right to Farm Act was passed. It was passed in response to municipalities growing, suburbia encroaching in on what was farm land and the yuppies that wanted to escape urban blight didn’t like the sound and smell of some farms. The farms were there first, however. I have 2 acres in a city. It’s been in my family for over 40 years. It’s been literal hell to just try to live there. The city has done everything from making me get rid of a tractor or else pour a cement slab for it with a rat wall to mowing down sunflowers, calling them noxious weeds, and the charging me to do it. Do you want freedom or not? If you don’t, you’re an idiot and need to go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under. Go back to living with someone’s foot on your throat." - William Wallace, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

Republican Congressman from Kansas Sponsors Bill to Block Mandatory GMO Food Labeling by States

"Somehow a handful of giant corporations have taken control of our food supply and away from the American fFarmers. If you thing these giant corporations have your health at the forefront of their best interests, you are a blind fool. On another note, I find it highly ironic and a huge red flag of the bowing down to lobbyists and big money, that a congressman from America's Heartland, where many people rely on farming as income, has decided to cater to these large corporations that bully farmers. It is disgusting to even think about. And it's not just localized to our agriculture. Just about every industry has been boiled down to just a handful of massive parent companies, and that is very bad for a capitalist economy. Competition cannot govern the market if there is no competition to be seen." - Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, Yahoo!

"I'll bet the GOP stands to lose a lot of lobbyist bribe money if they can't prevent the labelling from becoming law. Of course, whenever anything Monsanto does is taken to the Supreme Court, it helps that they've got a former employee serving on the bench. Isn't that right Clarence?" - Half-Evil D, Yahoo!

For those who don't know: when you buy fruits and veggies, there are numbers on them... for GMO, it'll be a number normally starting with a 4 and will be like 4102 and such, and normally always 4 digits; for organic, it'll be a number starting always with a 9 and will be like 91803 and such, and normally always 5 digits.

Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements so why shouldn't GMOs? In the US, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply).

U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such. Headline should read "Congressman from Kansas gets big paycheck from food industry to keep you from knowing what you are eating."

April 9, 2014

Reuters - A Republican congressman from Kansas introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

The bill specifically prohibits any mandatory labeling of foods developed using bioengineering.

"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," said Pompeo. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."

Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.

Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating GMOS are safe and "equally healthy" and no labeling is needed.

"It has to date made food safer and more abundant," said Pompeo. "It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity."

But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.

Notably, millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use of Roundup.

Pompei said he expects hearings on the bill sometime this summer. The measure would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. One provision would make it mandatory for biotech crop developers to notify the Food and Drug Administration before it brings a new biotech seed to market and receives no objection from the FDA.

Currently, companies typically do notify the FDA and consult with the agency, but it is not mandatory for them to do so if the ingredients have been strictly separated from biotech crops, and if the company does not imply that its product is safer than foods containing GMOs, the bill states.

The measure requires the FDA to promulgate regulations that specify a maximum permissible level of inadvertent GMO presence that is allowed in foods bearing such non-GMO labeling.

Backers of mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops said that the bill is a sign that the GMA and biotech seed developers fear growing consumer distrust of GMO foods.

"They know that the food movement's power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when." said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit group that supports mandatory GMO labeling. They are afraid of state action and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress."

Comment by Focalizer at Yahoo!

A great many independent scientists and scientific groups composed of hundreds of members have catgorically called GMOs biological warfare and a danger greater than nuclear bombs. It has been proven to cause a great many human health risk and its' negative impact on the environment are well documented, as in the lose of 90% of the bee population which is essential for natural pollination. The Monarch butterfly migration has been reduced over 80% due to the lose of milkweed, due to the use of Roundup and a myriad of other herbicides and insectcides used in the production of GMO crops, which is their primary diet during migrations which pass through heavily contaminated GMO crop areas. Huge amounts of bird deaths can be attributed to these products and their production methods.

Currently 52 countries have outright banned or heavily limited experimentation of GMOs and those based upon both scientific studies and the wishes of the populous.

No valid study has shown improved crop production via GMOs and, in fact, in some cases, just the opposite. The simple fact of the matter is that biotech industries are seeking to control the worlds' primary food staples via sales of non-reproductive seed strains so that they are insured annual sales of the seed stocks. They have absolutely no concern for the impacts which their products have upon the human or other life forms, other than seemly trying to destroy them as they contribute to the natural food sources which are the competition. As such it is in fact biological warfare and in all wars the innocents (in this case against all species) suffer the most.

The GMO industries are a ticking time bomb that is and will affect this generation and many coming ones with its unnaturally modified organisms. The health of the planet, including our human species, is at serious risk by corporations with no moral scruples and an insidious drive for power.

Of course they do not wish that products containing ingredients which they produce be labeled so that the people are knowledgeable as to what they are consuming and its affects upon humanity and the natural world. Yet, as I pick up any packaged products, they all list their ingredients, from vitamin and mineral contents to artificial ingredients used in their production.

Why should not the people also know when GMO ingredients are included!!!??? It is our health, the health of our children and theirs. Indeed the health of the natural balances within nature that all life is dependent upon and which is essential for the existence of all species upon our home planet for millions-billions of years to come.

What are the biotech industries so afraid of? After all, it is nothing more than other products whose ingredients must be listed on packaged foods, medicines and beverages made for human and animal consumption. Why should they be above and outside of the consumer protection laws, rules and regulations? Why should we allow the mad scientists of the biotech industries to dictate what we should know and what we shouldn't? Why should humanity allow a close and closed circle to usurp the world's food supplies and dictate our diets and what we must consume. 

Of course Hitler and crew would love it, but we have sacrificed greatly to prevent such inhumanities from occurring and insist on our freedoms for that is what America was conceived to do since its founding.

When it comes to a Public Enemy List, the Biotechs should be placed high up on that list, if not at the very top. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. And obviously they do not want the public to know.

Comment by Bramduff at Yahoo! 

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified food because they said there is no scientific evidence of harm. The AMA believes that even voluntary labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education. The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".

[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:

"lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"

A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.