Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Land of the free? Michigan Dept of Natural Resources to take on family farmers?

They're at it, again!

The wild-eyed conspiracy theorists of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and people like Mike Adams of Natural News, and . . . oh, man! Just do a Google search on michigan pork producers association dnr--the nut cases are all over the place.

They're claiming the Michigan Pork Producers Association has now "bought and paid for" the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. One more example of big corporate interests taking control of the food you will be permitted to eat.

They are claiming it's a matter of freedom, of self-determination, of rights.

They're saying the DNR is opposed to genetic diversity. They're opposed to people raising pigs out-of-doors, pigs that haven't had their tails docked, pigs that aren't hairless, pigs that don't match the definitions created by Big Agriculture and the Pork Producers Associations of America . . . !

Listen to one of the conspiracy theorists in this so-called war on freedom. . . .

And here's one of the breathless, fear-mongering articles:

Insane Michigan government announces plan to destroy ranch livestock based on hair color and arrest hundreds of ranchers as felons

Tuesday, March 27, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The State of Michigan is only days away from engaging in what can only be called true "animal genocide" -- the mass murder of ranch animals based on the color of their hair. It's all part of a shocking new "Invasive Species Order" (ISO) put in place by Michigan's Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This Invasive Species Order suddenly and shockingly defines virtually all open-range pigs raised by small family farms to be illegal "invasive species," and possession of just one of these animals is now a felony crime in Michigan, punishable by up to four years in prison.

The state has said it will "destroy" these pigs beginning in April, potentially by raiding local farms with government-issued rifles, then shooting the pig herds while arresting the members of the family and charging them with the "crime" of raising pigs with the wrong hair color. This may truly be a state-sponsored serial animal killing spree.

Reality check: You may think this story is some kind of early April Fools prank, but it isn't. This is factually true and verifiable through the documents, videos and websites linked below. The State of Michigan seriously intends to unleash a mass murder spree of pigs of the wrong color beginning April 1.

Yet these are the very pigs that farmers and ranchers in Michigan have been raising for decades. The state doesn't seem to care about this, and there are indications that this ISO may have been nudged into position by the conventional pork industry as a tactic to wipe out its competition of local, specialty ranching conducted by small families and dedicated farmers who don't work for the big pork corporations. (The Michigan Pork [Producers] Association.)

Hear the shocking interview and watch the family farm video...

I have recorded an exclusive interview with Mark Baker from Baker's Green Acres -- one of many ranching operations threatened with total destruction by state bureaucrats and this new Invasive Species Order. Listen to that interview here:

The Baker family has also recorded a video explaining their farming operation and how the state of Michigan is threatening to destroy their entire farming operation. Watch that stunning video (and spread the word about it) at:

Mark Baker, by the way, is a veteran of the United States Air Force. As a veteran of the U.S. armed forces, he served to protect the rights of others, yet he now finds his own rights and freedoms under assault by the state of Michigan. He told NaturalNews he is determined to protect his livelihood at all costs and to take a stand against tyranny in Michigan.

Got the wrong hair color? The state of Michigan will kill you

The State of Michigan has issued a document describing nine "traits" of what they call "feral pigs" which they claim should be destroyed on April 1.

Read the document describing those nine traits at:

Those traits include having the wrong color on the tip of the hair or even being born with striped hair. The traits are written so that virtually all pigs raised by family ranchers across the state of Michigan will be targeted for destruction by the state of Michigan starting April 1. Farmers who defend their livestock may be arrested as felons and charged with multiple felony crimes by the state.

Michigan to kill all blacks

Here's some of the language from the Michigan document describing which animals are to be destroyed. Remember: For a pig to qualify as "feral" according to state tyrants, it only has to exhibit ONE of these traits, not all of them:
  1. Bristle-tip coloration: exhibit bristle tips that are lighter in color (e.g., white, cream, or buff) than the rest of the hair shaft.
  2. Dark point coloration: exhibits "points" (i.e., distal portions of the snout, ears, legs, and tail) that are dark brown to black in coloration, and lack light-colored tips on the bristles.
  3. Coat coloration: exhibit a number of coat coloration patterns: solid black, solid red / brown, black and white spotted, black and red / brown spotted.
  4. Underfur: exhibit the presence of underfur that is lighter in color (e.g., smoke gray to brown) than the overlying dark brown to black bristles/guard hairs.
  5. Juvenile coat pattern: exhibit striped coat patterns -- a light grayish-tan to brown base coat, with a dark brown to black spinal stripe and three to four brown irregular longitudinal stripes with dark margins along the length of the body.
  6. Skeletal appearance: Structures include skull morphology, dorsal profile, and external body measurements including tail length, head-body length, hind foot length, ear length, snout length, and shoulder height.
  7. Tail structure: Straight tails.
  8. Ear structure: Erect ear structure.
  9. "Other characteristics not currently known to the MDNR that are identified by the scientific community."
Did you catch that last one? So now the so-called "scientific community" can simply invent whatever trait they want and the state of Michigan will legalize the mass murder of all ranch animals displaying that trait.

The state of Michigan plans to bring guns to destroy local food, local farms

What's clear from all this is that Michigan bureaucrats plan to bring guns and handcuffs to ranches all across Michigan, shooting their family livestock dead and ruining their farming operations. They then plan to arrest these ranchers as felons and separate them from their families, then charge them with felony crimes.

This is all being done under the mantra of "government is good! Government protects you!" It's being pushed under the guise of protecting people from "invasive species," yet what the Michigan bureaucrats don't tell anyone is that now your local food producers have had their own ranch animals placed on that list!

That's the trick here: Michigan has declared farm animals to be an invasive species!

An epic battle of truth, freedom and justice is being waged in Michigan

We need your help to defend farm freedom in Michigan and across the country. Here are some actions you can take:
  1. SHARE this article.
  2. WATCH the video: http://youtu.be/843yH_0RMIA
  3. LISTEN to the interview at:
  4. SUPPORT the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:
  5. DONATE to help support the legal fees of the Baker family farm. Their website is at www.BakersGreenAcres.com
  6. DEMAND farm freedom in your area! No government has the right to tell us what food we can or cannot grow, eat or trade! It's as simple as that, and any government bureaucrat, tyrant or local dictator who thinks they can trample on your God-given right to choose what kind of food you wish to produce or consume is in desperate need of having a boot shoved deeply and forcefully up their rear ends.
Give tyrants the boot! Defend local farms. Even if you don't eat pork (I don't), this is still a farm freedom issue worth fighting for.

Read more at:


Rather overheated, wouldn't you say?

So what's the truth?

I went to the Michigan Pork Producers Association website. They have no comments directly addressing the issues Mr. Baker raises. It's not even on their radar.

But in one of their newsletters, I found an article that speaks to the issue of wild pigs:
MPPA, along with the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy and Michigan United Conservation Clubs, has been pressing state officials to declare wild pigs an invasive species.

“An invasive species declaration would make it illegal to possess hogs for sport shooting purposes and this would be helpful in shutting-off what, we believe, has been the source of the problem; animals escaping from the shooting facilities,” said Dennis DeYoung MPPA President.

DeYoung points out that even if an invasive species order is issued and it becomes illegal to have wild hogs for shooting purposes, this is only one part of the problem. “Obviously, we feel strongly that an invasive species order is needed to shut off the faucet, but we still have to deal with the estimated 3,000 to 7,000 that have already escaped into the wild,” said DeYoung. “That’s where the trapping program comes in and why we worked hard to get legislation passed earlier this year that would allow anyone qualified to carry a firearm to shoot them at any time. Wild hogs are a huge threat to our industry and its high-time that state officials take aggressive action to deal with them.”

DeYoung points out that it has now been more than a decade since the wild hog problem was identified in Michigan and some of these animals have been known carriers of the pseudorabies (PRV) virus.

“PRV was eradicated in Michigan in 2000 and in the U.S. in 2004. If the virus spreads from wild hogs to even one commercial operation, losses could be devastating,” said DeYoung. “I know outlawing shooting operations is a controversial and politically charged issue, but the pork industry has too much at risk to do anything less.”

(Michigan Pork, 2010, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 10)

Whew! This is a big issues, isn't it!?! Good grief! Can you imagine! You've invested millions of dollars into your hog production operation, and now, suddenly, some irresponsible hunting club, or private property owner who wants to bring in sports hunters for profit, engages in irresponsible behavior that threatens your entire investment.

Sounds very reasonable. You've got to deal with the shooting/hunting club operators that let pigs run free in property that is inappropriately contained, and you need to deal with pigs running wild out in the open.

So they ought to come up with some kinds of regulations that will deal with the irresponsible parties and true wild/feral pigs.

So what has Mr. Baker and all of these "freedom and personal rights" people so up in arms?

Let's look at the regulations as written. Forget the spin doctors!

I thought I would do a search for words that might imply "sport shooting purposes" or the equivalent.

I was stunned.

None of the following words appear in the document. You won't find hunting. You won't find shooting. You won't find sport. You won't find anything to do with the purpose for which someone might want to own a particular pig.

There was/is nothing in the regulations about health or safety--either of humans or of animals.

No. What you find is this:
40.4 Additional prohibited species.
   (1) Possession of the following live species, including a hybrid or genetic variant of the species, an egg or offspring of the species or of a hybrid or genetically engineered variant, is prohibited:
. . .
      (b) Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not
intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.
And then the rest of the document explains what their real target is: Sus scrofa. Period.

Nothing about true purpose or intent of the owner (if an animal is owned), nor, even, about behavior (something, for example, about where the animal is found--in a field not owned by the putative owner of the animal). Nope. It's all about species.

And interesting, too, that last line I quoted, isn't it? Sus domestica is specifically exempted from this regulation. Doesn't matter if your sus domestica escapes and gets into your neighbors' fields. Doesn't matter if your Sus domestica really does go feral. You're covered.

My take: Mr. Baker has it exactly right.

The Michigan Pork Producers, for PR purposes, speaks of "invasive species" and "feral pigs." But in truth: It's all about eliminating competition by use of the legal/political apparatus.

Hey, Monsanto has been doing this for years! It's time, now, for other corporations to get on the bandwagon. The government is such an awesome tool to use against your competitors!

What scares me: Mr. Baker may soon be labeled an ecological "terrorist"--y'know, one of the people who needs to be targeted not only by gun-wielding Michigan State troopers, but by the federal government because of his threat to national security. One minor blip and, oh well, he's a dead man . . . or thrown in prison without legal recourse.

So I'm back in the camp of the conspiracy theorists. Even if and as their language is "extreme." I don't want to find myself at the wrong end of a "law enforcement" officer's firearm.

Maybe it is time we paid attention to the Ron Paul, small-government activists.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Just wrote to AllRecipes.com

I am trying to wean myself from using a professional cook to make my meals. I decided to join AllRecipes.com as one step in the process of preparing myself for this transition.

So things have seemed pretty cool the last couple of days.

And then I thought I would post my personal photo to my personal profile. I mean, it's a nice thing to do.

But as I was getting ready to submit it, I read the "fine print":
By submitting this photo to Allrecipes.com, you agree to the Terms and Conditions of this web site, including those relating to ownership of the photos you submit.
Uggh! I hate all the legal stuff. But . . . I dutifully scanned the blah-blah-blah until I came to the really important stuff: "Proprietary Rights." They own everything on their site:
Allrecipes or its affiliates or licensors solely and exclusively own all rights, title and interest in all web site materials, including, without limitation, the Allrecipes logo, design, text, copy, graphics, videos, other files, and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively, “Content”).
The statement is just strong enough, I wondered: Are they claiming to own everything I submit as well? Like my photo?

I kept scanning until I hit "Submissions."

That's when I wrote my protest:

I was about to "Add Photo" to my personal profile, but . . . You urged me to read the fine print about your privacy policies. . . . which I did.

Are you kidding?
By submitting . . . any recipe, review, photograph, image, video, “favorites” list, comments, feedback, postcards, suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, concepts, and other information, content or material, or other item (each, a “Submitted Item”) to Allrecipes, . . . you hereby grant to Allrecipes . . . the exclusive right to use, display, publicly perform, modify, reproduce, publish, distribute, make derivative works of, sublicense, and otherwise exploit all such materials on commercial websites, without compensation of any kind to you or any third party.

So I may no longer display my own photo on a commercial website that I own.

Thanks anyway.

They claim "an irrevocable, nonexclusive, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free right and license to . . . commercially and non-commercially exploit your Submitted Items . . . in any manner or medium now existing or hereafter developed (including but not limited to print, film, or electronic storage devices)."

I can understand that.

But an exclusive right for use on commercial websites? Forget it!

I guess it's caveat utilitor: User beware!

Sunday, March 25, 2012

American democracy at work . . . or not

Back-room deals even at the local level. . . . Here, Bryan Spencer, former St. Charles County (Missouri) Republican Central Committeeman, Caucus Subcommittee Chairman, and candidate for Missouri State House of Representatives in District 63, admits to premeditated rigging of the St. Charles County Caucus.

Indeed, when you think about it, in essence he says the election-rigging he helped perpetrate in St. Charles is and has been committed elsewhere: "I looked at Iowa, I looked at Maine, I looked at Nebraska, and saw how they did it. . . . [W]e tried to come up with a set of rules that were going to best represent the entire county voice. We didn't want to make it an all-or-nothing [??]ace; we wanted it to be proportional. . . . [I]f the Ron Paul [group] had . . . taken over the meeting, . . . you would have had no voice."

Sounds reasonable. Until you realize that, in order to ensure the results the Central Committee desired, they had to ramrod against their own rules the crowd that came according to the rules and sought to vote according to the rules.

Best context may be found in this audio-only recording from the meeting:

As "Jefferson" notes, here,
All you have to do is read the guide from the GOP to see that [the Central Committee meeting organizers] VIOLAT[ED] THE RULES TO GET THEIR WAY.

From the MO GOP party guide for temporary chairmen:

3.2.1 Sample Script
Chair: At this time nominations are in order for Caucus Chairman.[The Chair places John Doe
into nomination.] Are there any [additional] nominations? (Additional nominations from the floor may be submitted)
Floor: I nominate Jane Doe
Chair: Jane Doe is nominated. Are there any additional nominations? (pause) If not, nominations are now closed. We will vote with a counted rising vote, you may only stand to vote for one candidate. All those in favor of electing John Doe as chairman, please stand and be counted.
Chair: All those in favor of electing Jane Doe as chairman, please stand and be counted.
Chair: With a vote of # to #, Jane Doe is elected as Caucus Chairman. (Jane assumes roles as Chair and the meeting proceeds)

If you want to SEE video from the caucus (it gets wild!), here is the best/most complete video:

Joe Wetter, one of the Ron Paul Coordinators for St. Charles County, explains (see second comment after the brief article):
[D]ue to having a great, dedicated team, the Ron Paul campaign in Saint Charles County was the only organized camp who walked into that caucus with a full slate of delegates typed and ready to be voted on. The Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich camps came to that meeting looking to cut a deal. The Santorum camp approached the Romney camp, but the Romney camp refused to deal with them.

Our number one task is to acquire delegates and we figured that we had enough people to get our chairman elected by plurality, but not a majority to get our rules passed.

So, because of our hard work getting a complete slate of 147 delegates and 147 alternates together, we were in the position to negotiate.

Our deal was that if the Romney supporters voted for our chairman, we would vote for their secretary, and they would vote on our rules. If they did vote this way, we would take all of their confirmed delegates up to half of the 147 and put them on our slate after removing the bottom delegates from our slate equal to their number.

They liked the idea. They liked our rules.

The only objections were the ban on cameras and the erroneous delegate allocation being determined by the straw poll at the door that was suggested by the Central Committee. We assured them that as soon as we won the chair, the first order of business would be to put the camera ban up to a vote.

Again, our goal is to get delegates, and if we have to make an alliance to get them, so be it. All is great, but half is better than none.

There was nothing against the GOP rules or Robert’s Rules of Order with what we were planning, or the agreement made between the two camps. The Fascist Central Committee blatantly broke Robert’s Rules of Order to shoe in their chairman and their rules.

[Wetter quotes from the article on which he is commenting, then responds.] “Bennett says the rules they objected to, including electing a caucus chair without opposition, were designed to prevent that from happening, 'A lot of the rules that were put in place were put in place in order to maintain a fair caucus, and some people didn’t want a fair caucus.'”

The thing is, . . . there was opposition to electing their chair, and the tapes all over the internet prove it. Eugene Dokes would not recognize our motions, call for division, and even when the entire gym, except for some Santorum people, chanted POINT OF ORDER and BRENT STAFFORD in unison.

The Central Committee DOES NOT make the rules, the people in the caucus do. Not to mention, prior to them ”electing” their caucus chair, the temporary chair appointed a parliamentarian, the credentials committee, and the rules committee, which are all the appointments to be made by the PERMANENT chair.

But my experience attending two Central Committee meetings, Dokes does not know Robert’s Rules of Order. [Or doesn't choose to follow them when they are inconvenient! --JAH]

Interesting counter perspective: "Basic issue—The Paul camp did not have a majority in the St. Charles caucus. They violated their own principles by attempting to cut a deal with a candidate whom they detest."

Why and how this kind of thing is done. (From a calm, "reasoned" interview [with side commentary] shot in 2008 after the Ron Paul delegation, following the rules, first surprised the mainstream leadership.) Tom Kuypers explains how he was able to overturn the Ron Paul vote.

I find myself tending to agree with the sentiments of some of the commenters on Kuypers' interview:
I saw this happen in Louisana, Texas, Nevada & other states.

[The Republicans] had their caucuses & then when Ron Paul would get delegates, the John McCain people or Neo-Cons would take the delegates away from Paul -- EVEN THOUGH PROPERLY ELECTED. . . .

Later the McCain people came to me looking for support & all I had to say was - F.U.
[The] Republican party will pay a hefty price for alienating long-standing conservatives who supported the liberty and limited government message of Ron Paul. [People] like Mr. Kuypers are responsible for losing [the 2008] election, and probably several more on into the future until they finally (if ever) get the message!
"The world is run by those who show up." McCain's ppl did not show up, and so Tom Kuypers has to bend and break rules to get the result the party insiders wanted. And they wonder why they lost this election!


Reminds me of a certain social studies class in high school. Our teacher asked us to create a government . . . then walked out the door.

"Everyone" assumed we should have a democracy. For some reason, I was just ornery enough (and curious enough) that I decided to do an experiment. The teacher had obviously left us to experiment. Why not see what happens when one doesn't make the standard assumptions?

Though other participants may disagree, I can assure you, [my] "The People's Party" gained full support of the masses. No one opposed us. [Ahem. "Us" being me. And a couple of others who joined me.]

About 20 minutes after the experiment began, the teacher in the classroom next door had to find our teacher to regain control. For some reason, there was too much noise coming from our room.

Our teacher [an avowed Maoist--as in, follower of Chairman Mao of Communist China] came into the classroom, walked over to her desk, reached into a drawer, pulled out a gun [yes, really! --though I have no idea whether it was really real], and hissed: "Chairman Mao says, 'True political power begins at the point of a gun.' Now sit down!"

I sat down. And so did the rest of the class.

There were no more political experiments in our social studies class that year!