It’s been quickly retweeted dozens of times, indicating that the idea is interesting to many people. So let’s discuss it in more than 140 characters.

In case it needs saying: Police officers are unlike terrorists in almost all respects. Crucially, the goal of the former, in their vastest majority, is to have a stable, peaceful, safe, law-abiding society, which is a goal we all share. The goal of the latter is … well, it’s complicated. I’ve cited my favorite expert on that, Audrey Kurth Cronin, here and here and here. Needless to say, the goal of terrorists is not that peaceful, safe, stable society.

I picked up the statistic from a blog post called: “Fear of Terror Makes People Stupid,” which in turn cites the National Safety Council for this and lots of other numbers reflecting likelihoods of dying from various causes. So dispute the number(s) with them, if you care to.

I take it as a given that your mileage may vary. If you dwell in the suburbs or a rural area, and especially if you’re wealthy, white, and well-spoken, your likelihood of death from these two sources probably converges somewhat (at very close to zero).

The point of the quote is to focus people on sources of mortality society-wide, because this focus can guide public policy efforts at reducing death. (Thus, the number is not a product of the base rate fallacy.) In my opinion, too many people are still transfixed by terrorism despite the collapse of Al-Qaeda over the last decade and the quite manageable — indeed, the quite well-managed — danger that terrorism presents our society today.

If you want to indulge your fears and prioritize terrorism, you’ll have plenty of help, and neither this blog post nor any other appeal to reason or statistics is likely to convince you. Among the John Mueller articles I would recommend, though, is “Witches, Communists, and Terrorists: Evaluating the Risks and Tallying the Costs” (with Mark Stewart).

If one wants to be clinical about what things reduce death to Americans, one should ask why police officers are such a significant source of danger. I have some ideas.

Cato’s work on the War on Drugs shows how it produces danger to the public and law enforcement both, not to mention loss of privacy and civil liberties, disrespect for law enforcement, disregard of the rule of law, and so on. Is the sum total of mortality and morbidity reduced or increased by the War on Drugs? I don’t know to say. But the War on Drugs certainly increases the danger to innocent people (including law enforcement personnel), where drug legalization would allow harm to naturally concentrate on the people who choose unwisely to use drugs.

The militarization of law enforcement probably contributes to the danger. Cato’s Botched Paramilitary Police Raids map illustrates the problem of over-aggressive policing. Cato alum Radley Balko now documents these issues at the Huffington Post. Try out his “Cop or Soldier?” quiz.

There are some bad apples in the police officer barrel. Given the power that law enforcement personnel have — up to and including the power to kill—I’m not satisfied that standards of professionalism are up to snuff. You can follow the Cato Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project on Twitter at @NPMRP.

If the provocative statistic cited above got your attention, that’s good. If it adds a little more to your efforts at producing a safe, stable, peaceful, and free society, all the better.

This article originally appeared on the Cato@Liberty blog. Source: policymic.com

If you look closely, you may just find the name of one listed among the names of more than 800 scientists from around the globe who have joined forces in an open letter to all world governments, outlining their detailed concerns over the alarming potential threat of biotech’s unauthorized, worldwide GMO foods experiment.

In a country whose government and media appear only too eager to conjure up fear of “bioterrorism” and “biological weapons,” it’s shocking (albeit obviously deliberate) to what extent the GMO issue remains omitted from mainstream discussion. Consider that the message from these scientists seems to be that the whole planet is already under attack by the persistent and largely unchecked, reckless behavior of greedy, unruly U.S. corporations – corporations whose activities appear to be sponsored by the federal government. And whether you know it yet or not, your body is the battleground.

The letter, as posted by the Institute of Science in Society, is a collective call for the immediate suspension of any and all releases of GM crops and products into the environment for at least five years, in order to allow for more thorough testing. The scientists further demand that all patents on life-forms and living processes – including seeds, cell lines and genes – be revoked and banned “for a comprehensive public inquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.”

Life is a discovery, they say, not an innovation, and patents on life-forms and living processes “sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.” Furthermore, they argue that GM crops provide no identifiable benefits either to farmers or consumers; instead, they offer only very significant risks to all living things.

GMOs are just bad news, followed by more bad news

Any consumption of GMO products is basically a smorgasbord of disaster, say these global scientists. In their thorough and fully cited open letter, they take biotechnology to task – making clear, undeniable connections between GM food crops and other products (like milk from cows injected with genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone) and health problems for mammals in general. At the same time the GM crops themselves actually contribute to lower yields, increased use of herbicides/insecticides, unpredictable performance, poor economic returns, and a progressive monopoly on food by big corporations, they also encourage herbicide-tolerant weeds and pesticide-resistant superbugs, making their purported goal of “feeding the world” appear just as it is – clearly out of the reach of biotech industry. Scientists propose, instead, that these large food corporations are actually more the cause of world hunger currently, than they are the solution to it.

“It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier,” scientists say. “Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide… Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.” Seed patent policies currently in place at biotech companies prevent farmers from saving and replanting seeds, an activity the scientists acknowledge, is one enjoyed even by third world farmers.

As promised; however, it only gets worse. Scientists agree that GMOs actually harm the delicate biodiversity necessary to the balance and maintenance of life on this planet. GM products, they say, “decimate wild plant species indiscriminately,” cause birth defects in mammals, kill insects essential to pollination like bees, lacewings, monarch butterflies, and pose other very serious threats related to horizontal gene transfer – for example, the “spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infections diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.”

Multiple hazards to both animal and human health have already been identified by sources around the world, resulting either in bans on GM products or the adoption of strict labeling laws by many countries. Here in the U.S.; however, secret memoranda from inside the FDA have revealed its history of disregarding the warnings of its own scientists. Still, with a separate but similar mass appeal to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 2009 failing to make a rippled, lasting impact, one can only hope that eventually the science on GMOs – and the growing number of people who know about it – will simply be too loud to ignore.

Author: Summer Tierney - Source: NaturalNews.com via undergroundhealth.com

The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.

It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health affects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.

Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky.  It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.

Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.

For a full timeline on aspartame’s legal and safety battles, expand the box below.

Full Aspartame Timeline
Timeline

December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.

Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.

Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.

November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.

December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”

Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.

February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.

March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.

May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.

July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.

August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.

March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”

January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.

March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.

July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)

August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.

December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.

September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”

January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.

May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.

July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.

August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.

September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.

November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)

November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.

Sources: minds.com - Author: Joe Martino

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm

http://dorway.com/

The 2012 french elections were rigged, censored, and manipulated. Nicolas Sarcozy had been spotted before the elections buying a house in the Hamptons; which proves that the french ruling elite had already changed their minds to whom their “guy” was going to be this time. The French and International Mainstream Media completely censored several other candidates as they always do, particularly a french comic, who is known for calling these past decades of French politics “a constantly encouraged hymn towards fascism”.  That is what our elites love to do, keep us guessing while we run like mice through their mazed contraptions. And you cannot blame them, it is their instinct to survive, it just so happens that they force their instinct on everyone else through fascism against the poor.

Since C.I.A Sarcozy came into power, the mainstream media had been portraying France as this homophobic nation full of nationalists. But in reality, when 500 homophobes in France would get together it made front page news around the world. Yet protests of 500,000 staging protests simultaneously against austerity measures imposed by the E.U, barely even get mentioned in the local media. France is an anarchist nation since Mikhail Bakunin, and the same corporations that funded Hitler and Stalin are doing everything in their power to get nazi sympathy in France back. Communist as well. I went to a socialist university in France jam packed with anarchist haters (communists, nazis), and they were renting out space to this corporation that was developing photo face recognition software for the modern global Gestapo. 3 of the so called activists at that school even knew it existed, and they thought it was good for them… statists!

The big problem you see is this, Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarcozy were part of the same think tank “Le Siecle” ( which already has a bad reputation and many people in it with bad reputations). Francois’s wife worked for Bolloré, one of the most influential families in France. Nicolas Sarcozy was also Berlusconi’s lawyer in the 1980’s and was a personal friend of both Berlusconi and Putin. This helps understand why Sarcozy rebuilt/privatized the non-existent French military in support of NATO, so that America could justify internationally having gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. Psyops programs were started in Germany and France to turn public opinion towards supporting George Bush’s imperialist war. Remember when Sarcozy and Bush went on a boat ride? Or do you remember how cozy Bush and Blair’s relationship was (Polanski made a movie about it, and you saw what happened to him)?

This was our icon on Facebook for over 2 years, and Facebook recently deleted it saying it was breaching their terms of engagement. If it is, that means that Facebook’s terms of engagement are against freedom of speech.

And with all this information of course you could argue that conflict of interest in the 21st Century is so common and normal. And some will even go even further, because they are so brainwashed; they will inadvertently say that conflict of interest should stay legal for some of the world’s wealthiest and most sophisticated mass murderers, who manipulate elections around the World, in support of private corporate interests. Is it? Because that sort of entangled mainstream rhetoric sure was paid for by some sophisticated S.O.Bs.

Conflict of interest might have been uncommon, if the U.S had not already intervened in European elections many times before, and hadn’t already supported right-wing fascists like the FN’s Lepen family (who helped serve as a tool to bring France more towards accepting corporate fascism as did the fascist party of Russia). The CIA has supported other well known fascists including Berlusconi, and Putin’s only competition the fascist party itself (there is no difference between Putin and the russian fascist party, if you noticed they always vote and support the same political objectives, those of the upper class). Signor Putin, is beyond any doubt a CIA asset, who is trying to bring Russia into NATO in order to “fight” against the “Axis of evil”, or pretend to and then act as though they brought peace, instead of more profits to their pockets.

The very definition of right wing is this ( many people these last decades pretended to be on either side of the political spectrum, but who are actually beyond any doubt right wing pions):

“ In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.”

Let us try and see if this rule applies:
Hitler?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Stalin?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Bush?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Ayatollah of Iran?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
King of Saudi Arabia?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Sarcozy?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
“Le Siecle?…. Definitely for Social Hierarchism… therefore right-wing
Obama?… Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
U.K Monarchy?… for Social Hierarchism… therefore right-wing
Leader of the D.P.R.K?…. Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Napoleon?…. Definitely a Social Hierarchist… therefore right-wing
Roman Empire?… Definitely for Social Hierarchism.. therefore right-wing

Which proves my point, that all true leftist defenders have been murdered for thousands of years, by social hierarchists who always indoctrinated the poor into believing that hierarchist/elitist systems (while being on top, and self-proclaiming people intelligent or not), were good. Why were so many poor people murdered all throughout history? So that a few people could manipulate everyone else? Doesn’t seem very intelligent, and definitely not a good way to make sure monetary inequality doesn’t occur. Robin Hood wasn’t written yesterday. And neither was Oliver Twist, the history of Diogenes of Sinope, or all those other anarchist spirits who have been black-holed from history, simply because they were against helping social hierarchists manipulate those who had nothing, time and time again, for thousands of years.

Source: anarchadia.com - FURTHER READING:

A French website recently stated that Sarcozy was a pion for the CIA, since the website has been deleted and all of their links are now dead.

François Hollande Nicolas Sarkozy… both in the same club “Le Siecle ” …. with the likes of Édouard de Rothschild … socialist my ASS!….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Si%C3%A8cle_(think_tank)

The two names are in sequence in the section “personnalités politiques”:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Si%C3%A8cle ”

Welcome to our first unspun news audio edition. As you know or may not know, we  have been unspinning spin doctored news since 2010, and have been heavily censored for it.

So we decided to bring you our censored information, through this new medium. In this podcast we will be talking about the current situation in Egypt, as well as covering a wide variety of headlines which were on the front page of Yahoo News, July 3rd.

You will find out that the mainstream news is actually just as easy to debunk/ridicule as absurd conspiracy theories, such as reptilian aliens.

Source and Audio: anarchadia.com

Fox met for three hours with the advocates, including Steve DeAngelo, the Oakland-based executive director of California's largest marijuana dispensary, and former Microsoft executive Jamen Shively, who hopes to create a Seattle-based pot brand now that Washington state has legalized recreational use.

Legalization, Fox told reporters after the meeting, is the only way to end the violence of Mexican drug cartels, which he blamed on America's war on drugs.

"The cost of the war is becoming unbearable - too high for Mexico, for Latin America and for the rest of the world," Fox said in English.

Every day, he said, 40 young people are killed in drug-related violence.

Fox's position on legalizing drugs has evolved over time since the days when he cooperated with U.S. efforts to tamp down production in Mexico during his 2000-2006 presidential term. He has been increasingly vocal in his opposition to current policies, backing two prior efforts to legalize marijuana in Mexico.

Mexico's current president, Enrique Peńa Nieto, has opposed legalization. But he recently said that he would consider world opinion on the matter, particularly in light of recent voter-approved initiatives to legalize marijuana in Washington state and Colorado for recreational use.

In San Francisco on Monday, Fox said he had signed on to attend and help develop an international summit later this month in Mexico to strategize a path to end marijuana prohibition.

Participants scheduled to attend the three-day meeting starting July 18 in San Cristobal include an American surgeon, the dean of Harvard's School of Public Health and a Mexican congressman who plans to introduce a bill to legalize marijuana in Mexico this summer, Fox said.

The bill, which he expects to be introduced by Mexican lawmaker Fernando Belaunzaran, would legalize adult recreational use of marijuana, Fox said.

Support for legalizing marijuana in the United States has been growing. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana laws, according to the pro-legalization National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. But the drug remains illegal under federal law.

Lifting the prohibition on cannabis in Mexico, however, appears to face more of an uphill battle. Mexican lawmakers have rejected previous legalization efforts and polls have shown little popular support for the idea.

But Fox promised to wage what he said was a necessary battle.

"We cannot afford more blood and the loss of more young people," Fox said. "We must get out of the trap we are in."

Source: Reuters via news.yahoo.com - Author: Ronnie Cohen - Editing by Sharon Bernstein and Eric Walsh

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. He and many others, including the European Union, are pointing the finger at a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc. used in planting corn and some other crops. The European Union just recently voted to ban these insecticides for two years, beginning December 1, 2013, to be able to study how it relates to the large bee kill they are experiencing there also.

Local grower Nathan Carey from the Neustadt, and National Farmers Union Local 344 member, says he noticed this spring the lack of bees and bumblebees on his farm. He believes that there is a strong connection between the insecticide use and the death of pollinators.

“I feel like we all have something at stake with this issue,” he said. He is organizing a public workshop and panel discussion about this problem at his farm June 22 at 10 a.m. He hopes that all interested parties can get together and talk about the reason bees, the prime pollinators of so any different plant species, are dying.

At the farm of Gary Kenny, south west of Hanover, eight of the 10 hives he kept for a beekeeper out of Kincardine, died this spring just after corn was planted in neighbouring fields.

What seems to be deadly to bees is that the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seed and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing the pesticide dust into the air when planted. The death of millions of pollinators was looked at by American Purdue University. They found that, “Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case. Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds.

Local investigations near Guelph, led to the same conclusion. A Pest Management Regulatory Agency investigation confirmed that corn seeds treated with clothianidin or thiamethoxam “contributed to the majority of the bee mortalities” last spring.

“The air seeders are the problem,” said Ontario Federation of Agriculture director Paul Wettlaufer, who farms near Neustadt. This was after this reporter called John Gillespie, OFA Bruce County president, who told me to call Wettlaufer. Unfortunately, Wettlaufer said it was, “not a local OFA issue,” and that it was an issue for the Grain Farmers of Ontario and representative, Hennry Vanakum should be notified. Vanakum could not be rached for comment.

Yet Guelph University entomologist Peter Kevan, disagreed with the EU ban.

“There’s very little evidence to say that neonicotinoids, in a very general sense, in a broad scale sense, have been a major component in the demise of honeybees or any other pollinators, anywhere in the world,” said Kevan.

But research is showing that honeybee disorders and high colony losses have become a global phenomena. An international team of scientists led by Holland’s Utrecht University concluded that, ”Large scale prophylaxic use in agriculture, their high persistence in soil and water, and their uptake by plants and translocation to flowers, neonicotinoids put pollinator services at risk.” This research and others rsulted in the Eurpean Union ban.

The United Church is also concerned about the death of so many pollinators and has prepared a “Take Action” paper it’s sending out to all its members. The church is basing its action on local research. The Take Action paper states among other things, “Scientific information gathered suggests that the planting of corn seeds treated with neonicotinoids contributed to the majority of the bee mortalities that occurred in corn growing regions of Ontario and Quebec in Spring 2012.”

Meanwhile Schuit is replacing his queen bees every few months now instead of years, as they are dying so frequently. “OMAFRA tells me to have faith. Well, I think it’s criminal what is happening, and it’s hard to have faith if it doesn’t look like they are going to do anything anyway,” Schuit says.

Author: Jon Radojkovic - Source: thepost.on.ca

I reply: " A half smoked joint".
He says: "You know I can take you down to jail for that."
I replied: "You know you'd be taking me to jail stoned, wouldn't THAT be illegal?"

He looked at me like I had said the dumbest thing.

He says: "Ok wise guy we will see how wise you will be when I take you down to jail."
I replied: " How can you be wise taking me to jail for a joint, when there are people out there selling crack to teenagers in neighborhoods you pussies are too afraid to go into. Poor people of different races are beating eachother/their children/their wives up while you guys turn your blind eye, because rich people are robbing them en masse, and you motherfuckers are arresting people for joints just so you can fine me and make more money at the end of the month. You sir should be in jail."
He says: " No, it is my duty to catch crime and take you to jail. "

So I reply: "How many people did I kill, and rob for that joint? Because the president robs and kills people every day and I'd love to see him go to jail for his crimes."
He slams me against the wall, puts handcuffs on me and takes me to his master to sequester me.
I yell at him while they're forcing me to go down to my holding cell: " So much for Liberty, Brotherhood, and Equality."
In my jail cell I met a guy who works for the local mafia, and he had smuggled a joint into the holding cell. We went in a corner where the camera couldn't see us, and smoked it. He told me about deals the local mafia has with the mayor to bring drugs in from North Africa to Marseille by boat, thanks to millionaire mansions along the coast. Good friends of the mayor. And tells me how the local mafia regularly send their own to get caught with petty crimes just to keep the local police distracted. And how some police officers high up in the hierarchy get paid hush money.

Then he explains the best part: "None of us are going to go to jail for more than a year because the jails are overpacked, and even if we do, we own the jails, we run the drugs in there, the cigarettes, the food... it's basically like a vacation home for people in the mafia. Even in there we cause violence just to keep drug prices high, and pay the guards to catch innocent people to fill their quotas."

And you'd think this was unique, but this is going on ever...

Source: Anarchadia

David Ranta was rushed to a New York hospital Friday night where it was discovered that one of his arteries was blocked and another was partially closed.

Ranta's attorney, Pierre Sussman, told the New York Times that his client received a stent and will have to undergo another surgical procedure.

Unemployed drug addict Ranta was sentenced to 37-and-a-half-years in prison after being found guilty of the killing of Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger in Williamsburg on February 8, 1990.

Ranta was released Thursday after a judge overturned his conviction, which hinged on a false testimony and a line-up that was falsified by police.

The newly freed man was staying in a hotel with his family following his release as he was easing into his new life after spending nearly a quarter of a century in a maximum security prison.

On Friday night, the 58-year-old man felt pain in his back and shoulders and became very hot, according to Sussman.

At first, Ranta's loved ones thought he was having a panic attack, but soon realized that it was more serious than that.
‘The toll that his years in prison have taken on David is great,’ added Mr. Sussman.

A child witness, whose evidence saw a man locked away for 23 years for the murder of a New York rabbi he didn't commit, has spoken of how police told him to identify the wrongly accused man.

Menachem Lieberman was 13 when he was shown a line-up of suspects accused of the murder of Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger in a diamond robbery that went wrong.

His decision to reverse his statement saw wrongly convicted David Ranta released from a maximum security jail yesterday after 23 years behind bars.

Ranta was set free after a judge overturned his conviction that hinged on a falsified witness testimony and a line up that was manipulated by police.

Now living in Montreal, the 36-year-old last night spoke of how police told him to select Ranta saying he should 'choose the one with the big nose'.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN Lieberman said: 'As I was walking into the room to the line-up, they told me I should pick the guy with the biggest nose. I was too young back then to realize that this was a set-up. I never saw a line up before - I thought it was part of the process'.

Unemployed drug addict Ranta was sentenced to 37-and-a-half-years in prison after being found guilty of the killing of Rabbi Chaskel in Williamsburg on February 8, 1990.

That day a man attempted to rob a diamond courier and when it went wrong hijacked Rabbi Chaskel's car - shooting him in the forehead and leaving him for dead.

The murder rattled the Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn and prompted calls for swift justice for the perpetrator.

Then just a schoolboy, Lieberman was one of the witnesses to the man's escape and his positive ID of Ranta saw him get locked away in 1991.

Over the years he realized that his selection had been influenced and in 2011 - 20 years on - he decided he had to share those suspicions.

'As years went by, I remembered someone had told me,' he told Cooper. 'The more and more I saw on the news innocent people getting let free - I started to think back to the trial I was involved in,' he explained.

'I didn't tell anyone in the world but as I grew older and saw more and more of these wrongful convictions it really bothered me. Two years ago I decided I had to get it off my chest.

'An innocent man was in jail and is now set free - the sad part is the killer never met justice. I feel I was set up as a kid and I just wanted to do my part for justice.'  

The detective in the case Louis Scarcella still denies any wrongdoing and says there were no attempts to frame Ranta.

However, other problems were discovered when the Conviction Integrity Unit looked into the case.

Paperwork was found to be missing and other leads didn't seem to be investigated. 

One key suspect was cocaine addict Joseph Astin. His wife testified in 1996 he had admitted the murder to her on the day but he died two months later.

In all, this convinced the court it was time to release 58-year-old Ranta, a father-of-three.

'Sir, you are free to go,' state Supreme Court Justice Miriam Cyrulnik told Ranta at a Brooklyn courthouse yesterday.

Relatives, including his youngest daughter who was an infant when he was jailed, erupted in tears and shouts of joy.

Prosecutors had joined Ranta's defense attorney, Pierre Sussman, in asking Cyrulnik to vacate Ranta's conviction 'in the interest of justice.'

'The evidence no longer establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,' said Assistant District Attorney John O'Mara, the chief of the conviction integrity unit.

He left the court carrying the belongings he had kept in his prison cell.

Asked by reporters outside what he would do, Ranta said, 'Get the hell out of here.'

'I'm overwhelmed. I feel like I'm under water, swimming. As I said from the beginning, I had nothing to do with this case.'
His family were overcome with joy.

'I just want to get him in my hands and I'll be happy,' said his son, David Ranta Jr., 36, to the New York Post.

Rabbi Chaskel was a much-loved member of his Brooklyn community.
Thousands of people attended his funeral, and the then Mayor David Dinkins offered a $10,000 reward for any information that led to an arrest.

When Ranta was arrested the police car carrying him to jail was surrounded with people chanting, 'Death penalty!'.

Despite the prosecution and the defense agreeing that conviction was not safe relatives of Werzberger were shocked that Ranta was released.

'For this to happen 23 years later is mind-boggling,' said Isaac Abraham to Fox News.

Source: dailymail.co.uk - Authors: KATIE DAVIES and SNEJANA FARBEROV

"This is a victory for WikiLeaks and freedom of information," Reporters Without Borders said. "The arbitrary blocking of payments put in place by financial service companies was completely illegal and has now been condemned as such by a country's highest court.

"We hope that this ruling will put a stop to the controversial decisions that Visa has been taking until now in connection with WikiLeaks and that Visa will instruct all of its partners and subcontractors around the world to comply. It would be strange, and unacceptable, if only Valitor were obliged to provide a service to WikiLeaks in Iceland while all the other subcontractors, including those in the rest of Europe and the United States, were not.

"We urge all the other financial service companies that that have been directly or indirectly involved in blocking payments to WikiLeaks to comply with the logic of Iceland's supreme court ruling without waiting to be legally forced to do so. The financial censorship resulting from these unilateral decisions must be lifted."

The case dates back to 2010, when several leading financial institutions including Visa and MasterCard stopped processing donations and other payments to WikiLeaks, depriving the whistleblowing website of its main source of income and threatening its financial survival.

DataCell, a company that collects donations for WikiLeaks, meanwhile filed a complaint with the European Commission accusing Visa Europe, MasterCard Europe and American Express of violating European Union competition rules when they stopped processing payments to WikiLeaks.

In a preliminary decision in November 2012, the commission said the block on processing donations was unlikely to have violated EU anti-trust rules. Reporters Without Borders urges the commission to reconsider this position in its final decision.

On 19 November 2012, the European parliament passed a resolution asking the European Commission to take the necessary steps to prevent credit card companies from refusing to process payments to companies and NGOs.

This position was shared by the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression and the US treasury department. The European Commission did not however act on the parliament's request, thereby allowing the block on payments to remain in place.

Source: ifex.org