posted March 29, 2013 12:01 AM            

And because of this i have talked with several people who think gmo's are truly a boon to starving peoples and that "rich white people" are just being selfish blockading the new wonderfoods.

posted March 29, 2013 06:18 AM            

The above articles explains clearly the lies about Monsanto Seeds being superior. They
have devastated poor farmers by the million.
250,000 Indian Farmers have committed suicide already.

posted March 29, 2013 07:33 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 29, 2013 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
I suppose, faith, you think he was going to shut down the govt for this earmark..or that he should? Which is it?

---

You're serious, you think that a veto would shut down the whole government??

Please explain how that would happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
And as i said, we have no way of knowing his feelings..that hardly merits your belligerent sarcasm, now does it?

---

We do have a way of knowing his feelings, we can look at the character of the person, and there are many indications that he is a willing...enthusiastic...conspirator with all the factions you separate him from and put the blame on.

To me it seems as arbitrary as if I picked out Diane Feinstein as having a heart of gold and consistently wrote excuses for every mercenary, Corporate-puppet deed of hers.

Maybe you'd find that exasperating after a while.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
If you consider that an endorsement, you are not being reasonable.

---

Endorsement of what, the Act or the Prez?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
The game they play is what it is .. one doesn't carry a hatchet to play baseball with.

---

posted March 29, 2013 11:26 AM            

Perhaps what i see is too subtle but the powers and responsibilities of the players are proscribed .

This bill, however, is a BUDGET BILL without which the govt machine was going to shut down. This entails a lot of mess in real life and unless you want outright revolution (bloodbath and chaos, yum!) not what you want, or so i assume.

There was no individual-clause veto available, and that is what the Monsanto Protection part is, an earmark hitchhiking its way thru like many others.

It is good for 6 months and a great incentive/headsup to step up the opposition.

posted March 29, 2013 11:35 AM            

As to "bleeding heart liberal", no i don't see that in obama at all...nor see how anyone could mistake him for one.

I don't pretend to know all the answers, and i will continue to challenge those who think they do - from the comfort and distance of their armchairs.

posted March 29, 2013 11:51 AM            

So the bees that have been saved will make more and the heirloom seed companies will become extremely rich.

posted March 29, 2013 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Politics is a game. Some play differently than others, but if you refuse to play you DIE, plain and simple.

---

Ron Paul didn't die.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
This bill, however, is a BUDGET BILL without which the govt machine was going to shut down....

There was no individual-clause veto available, and that is what the Monsanto Protection part is, an earmark hitchhiking its way thru like many others.

---

Earmarks, to my understanding, are allocations of money for certain "pet projects" in each Congressperson's district/state.

quote:

---

An earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

---

How does this Act serve as an earmark?

To say that the President is powerless to veto certain budgets without catastrophic consequences would indicate that there is virtually no point any more in sending these budgets to the President. Are you suggesting this is a mere formality anymore?

Yet, GW Bush succeeded with his vetoes of numerous bills. Have things changed so much since then?

After a President vetoes something, it goes back to Congress where they may attempt to override his veto. So what if that's inconvenient? The President can at least make a statement with his veto. He chose not to here (and it doesn't surprise me.)

But he has vetoed successfully in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
It is good for 6 months and a great incentive/headsup to step up the opposition.

However if you want to look at it as a done deal, lay down and die, that is of course a prerogative.

---

Regardless of the fact that 250,000 people signed a petition against this so-called Act, you maintain that we still haven't done enough, therefore it's like we are pitiful quitters if we don't keep fighting.

posted March 29, 2013 01:45 PM            

The "earmark" granting rights to "carry" in federal parks, buried in the Credit Reform bill, was not specific to any congressional district either.

Ron Paul was a Congressman. As such he played a valuable role but as you saw, he was not allowed anywhere near the presidency.

posted March 29, 2013 03:21 PM            

Perhaps, economic indicators showed that this was not a fight to pick at this time. (This reason/excuse could also be why Congress approved it.) We already have the sequester set to destroy some of the recovering economy, so this additional cut in spending could potentially be damaging. Perhaps Obama's priority is ensuring the economy recovers. The economic recovery, as everyone knows, has been an uphill battle not helped by the actions of conservatives.

Snopes has a good write-up for people wanting more understanding on the issue: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

And then there's this: http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The House...the Republican-controlled House.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

Not Rand Paul, or any other Paul.

Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a “backroom deal” with the biotech industry.

Interesting. Blame is falling on a Democrat, but the rider is still said to have been inserted anonymously...which means either a Democrat is to blame or a Democrat (and indeed the President) are being set up.

This is the same woman, incidentally, who is working with Republicans to restore budgetary priorities: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mikulski-wants-to-move-more-agency-budg ets-88479.html?hp=l2
Indeed, a government shut-down does appear to be a grave concern at the moment, Faith.

The often mercurial Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said: “I think the president’s really reaching out to try to form consensus to not only fix sequestration but get off the road to becoming Greece. He’s doing very well.” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mikulski-wants-to-move-more-agency-budg ets-88479.html?hp=l2

posted March 29, 2013 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
It was DUBBED an "act" by those who want to augment it for the purpose of fighting monsanto. The actual ACT is the budget bill.

---

Did you not notice that I either put quotation marks around the word "Act" or used a qualifier ("so-called Act") in every place where I used the term?

Obviously, I realize it's not an actual Act.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
The "earmark" granting rights to "carry" in federal parks, buried in the Credit Reform bill, was not specific to any congressional district either.

---

I think you either don't know what an earmark is or are keen to go long with other people calling things that are not earmarks, "earmarks." Which is strange, since you just fussed about a budget bill being dubbed an "Act," when it isn't.

Why call it an earmark when it isn't one?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
I recently read the resignation letter of Jamie Dimon, have ypu seen it?

---

posted March 29, 2013 03:59 PM            

Ron Paul is no longer in Congress, and I have no illusions about Rand voting with the same integrity as his father maintained.

posted March 29, 2013 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yes, the President could have vetoed, and taken a stand.

---

But it's highly unlikely when his previous actions show alignment with Monsanto.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Perhaps Obama's priority is ensuring the economy recovers.

---

I still don't see how a veto on this would interfere as extensively with the government and economy as you and Kat are arguing. It seems like you are resorting to hyperbole to defend his disappointing signing of this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

The House...the Republican-controlled House.

---

Pardon me, but why do you even mention this partisan bull, especially when the RT link you posted says:

quote:

---

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

---

It's not like Congress was dramatically split on this, with Democrats playing the valiant, would-be heroes, you know?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

[list]The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

---

Evidently unknown? This excuses something? Why not vote against anything you weren't given enough time to read? Wouldn't that make sense...then our government wouldn't be shaped by blind, wild guesses about the contents of the bills.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Interesting. Blame is falling on a Democrat, but the rider is still said to have been inserted anonymously...which means either a Democrat is to blame or a Democrat (and indeed the President) are being set up.

---

OR the President did it knowingly and wilfully. That's also a possibility!

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It appears to me that Obama is making the economy priority number one, not GMO issues inserted anonymously into budget bills.

---

posted March 29, 2013 11:39 PM            

Notice the date on this:

quote:

---

Oppose the GMO Riders: Must-pass 'fiscal cliff' bill could end up becoming 'Monsanto Protection Act'

Thursday, December 13, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Both Congress and the White House are said to be in the process of frantically trying to concoct an appropriations bill to thwart the impending "fiscal cliff," which is expected to arrive at the end of 2012 when the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 come into effect. But corporate agriculture and the biotechnology industry both want a piece of the legislative pie as well, which is why they are pushing to basically turn any proposed fiscal cliff bill into the ill-fated Monsanto Protection Act by attaching so-called "GMO Riders" onto its primary provisions.

---

posted March 30, 2013 12:29 AM            

As to the timing , just because one might expect them to be "trying" doesn't constitute a done deal. Obviouzly no one wants to be pinned for this one, so yes, i can see it bring slipped in when everyone else thought it had been left out...

posted March 30, 2013 08:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
I may have been being simplistic, but no, not belligerent OR sarcastic.

---

Belligerent and condescending then:

quote:

---

Do you also understand the concept of picking your battles?

---

Do you understand how patronizing that question is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Obviouzly no one wants to be pinned for this one, so yes, i can see it bring slipped in when everyone else thought it had been left out...

---

Of course we must assume they are innocent. They didn't see it, weren't vigilant enough to look for it, despite all the publicity and petitions blowing the trumpet beforehand.

They "thought it had been left out" but they were victimized! Hoodwinked!

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Shenanigans may be at an all time high on capitol hill these days.

---

Yet you practically bend over backwards defending and making excuses for these people.

posted March 30, 2013 01:13 PM            

posting on the phone is too laborious for me to reiterate every point you have chosen to take offense at. i am not defending democrats or obama, nor blaming republicans,

but i CAN see that allowing the economy to go down for a clause - this is an all or nothing choice - would be quixotic and self-serving. clauses can be challenged AFTER passage, bills UNpassed can cause major damage...tough choice.

whoever put it in there, many are to blame. the fact that we don't know who seems irrelevant to you. just convict with circumstantial evidence, no probs.

posted March 30, 2013 01:22 PM            

H.R.933
Latest Title: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 3/4/2013) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.99, H.R.1265, S.444
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 113-6 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Note: A House explanatory statement was printed in the March 6, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on page H1029. A Senate explanatory statement was printed in the March 11, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on page S1287.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.933:

Criticism
Rogers has been widely criticized by both liberal and conservative pundits for his priorities when it comes to national security. National Review referred to Rogers as "a national disgrace"[20] and Rolling Stone named him one of America's "Ten Worst Congressmen", calling him "Bin Laden's Best Friend" due to the fact that Rogers steered federal homeland security money away from large cities to his home district, which critics claim is one of the least likely terrorist targets in America because of its lack of any notable monuments or population centers.[21] In 2007, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Congressman Rogers to its list of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress.[22]

On May 14, 2006, the New York Times reported that Rogers had used his legislative position as chairman of the House subcommittee that controls the Homeland Security budget to create "jobs in his home district and profits for companies that are donors to his political causes."[23] The Lexington Herald-Leader in 2005 called Rogers the "Prince of Pork".[24] The Times article reported that Rogers had inserted language ("existing government card issuance centers") into appropriations bills that effectively pushed the federal government into testing at a cost of $4 million older, inappropriate technology for a new fraud-resistant green card for permanent legal immigrants, at a production plant in Corbin, Kentucky, within Rogers' district. The study concluded that the smart card approach was far superior. The Times found that about $100,000 in contributions had come to Mr. Rogers from parties with at least some ties to the identification card effort.[25]

In response to these critics, Rogers has stated, “It should surprise no one that this article from Rolling Stone regarding my activity in connection with the Transportation Worker Identity Card (TWIC) is grossly incorrect, and highly slanderous,” the congressman said. “A true and honest analysis would reveal that my sole interest in TWIC is simply to protect America's seaports, airports, and other transportation facilities from terrorist penetration. To purport that my actions have compromised national security in an effort to bring jobs to Kentucky or for personal gain is an absolute lie.”[26]

After Iran objected to the interim deployment of an Afloat Forward Staging Base to counter their threats to close the Persian Gulf, Rogers cut the funding for the project.[27][28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Rogers wiki states :This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (October 2010)

Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops.

An Act
Making consolidated appropriations and further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013’’.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEC. 2. The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. References.
Sec. 4. Explanatory statement.
Sec. 5. Availability of funds.
DIVISION A—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
Title I—Agricultural Programs
Title II—Conservation Programs
Title III—Rural Development Programs
Title IV—Domestic Food Programs
Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs
Title VI—Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration
Title VII—General provisions
DIVISION B—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
Title I—Department of Commerce
Title II—Department of Justice
Title III—Science
Title IV—Related agencies
Title V—General provisions
DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
Title I—Military Personnel
Title II—Operation and Maintenance
Title III—Procurement
Title IV—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Title V—Revolving and Management Funds
Title VI—Other Department of Defense Programs
Title VII—Related agencies
Title VIII—General provisions
Title IX—Overseas contingency operations
DIVISION D—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2013
Title I—Departmental management and operations

text

posted March 30, 2013 02:53 PM            

you will find the text of the clause in this article...and wonder how that tempest got in the teapot again...seems there is plenty of protection written into it, for us, farmers, and the ecology too.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/28/con servatives-laugh-as-liberals-attack-president-over-non-existent-monsanto-protection-act/

i was as wary of this clause as anyone but it now makes the "MONSANTO PROTECTION ACT" wheeze as culpable, i think, as the monsanto stealth ops.

posted March 30, 2013 03:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
just convict with circumstantial evidence, no probs.

---

It's not just circumstantial evidence, kat. The "crime" obviously happened, Monsanto has been given its judicial immunity, and Congress and the President signed for this.

Congress is nothing but a conspiracy any more. It's all smoke and mirrors.

posted March 30, 2013 04:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:

you will find the text of the clause in this article...and wonder how that tempest got in the teapot again...seems there is plenty of protection written into it, for us, farmers, and the ecology too.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/28/con servatives-laugh-as-liberals-attack-president-over-non-existent-monsanto-protection-act/

---

That article is overwhelmingly pro-Monsanto, and to pin the blame for the bill's opposition on shady wrangling by the neocons is totally absurd.

quote:

---

The concerns over these crops comes from fear. People instinctively understand sex, and how that produces children. They do not instinctively understand gene splicing, even though that is how sex produces children in the first place. Most people do not have time to go out and understand it, so they label such modified products as “frankenfoods” and build fear upon lack of information, or worse purposeful misinformation fed by other industries who seek to hurt some related cause, such as climate change science. The fact is, some genetically modified crops have been shown to have substantial benefits, by making them more resistant to disease, adding essential nutrients, and even fight climate change. Genetic modification through direct gene splicing has been done since 1970, and is widely understood after decades of research and application.

---

Let's just ignore StarLink corn and other GMO disasters!