60 votes

While America bickers over gay marriage Obama quietly signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' (H.R. 933) into law.

Divide and conquer. Americans have been arguing back and forth while SCOTUS debates gay marriage - an issue that shouldn't be a federal issue anyway. Meanwhile, the Congress, the Senate, and Obama all approve H.R. 933. Way to go America!

We just got word that despite past promises to promote GMO transparency, Obama signed HR 933, which contains the Monsanto Protection Act, into law...

Prior to the measure, courts had the ability to suspend the farming of GMO crops in the face of health or environmental risks. "It sets a terrible precedent," stated the International Business Times. "Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right."

http://foodbeast.com/content/2013/03/27/obama-signs-monsanto...

Since the act’s passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_...

How your Reps voted:
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/62

How your Senators voted:
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/s/44

Give them hell about it!

And finally, Obama voted with his signature. Ugh. All this happening while Americans eat up the gay marriage debate that the media spoon feeds them as if it's a federal issue anyway. /sigh

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

*groan*

I bookmarked it--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Did Rand vote for this?

Not trying to troll. Genuinely curious. I have heard that he did and that he didn't.

OpenCongress roll call says no.

Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY] Nay

So, that was a disaster, Monsanto is the embodiment of evil

and etc.

But what have we *learned*, class?

If we are going to be distracted by the media
frenzy over some other side issue then, not much.

Looking at postings and the front page it doesn't
seem to be making much of an impression that
next week is show time on gun (people) control.

If we lose having made an effort, well at least the
effort was made. If you can't be bothered then I
suppose you can wait till DHS swat teams are rolling down
your street in their new APC's and deal with it then..

Not a good time to take our eyes off the ball.

http://www.dailypaul.com/279977/email-blast-right-to-bear-ar...

http://www.dailypaul.com/278921/900-pound-gorilla-of-gun-con...

http://gunowners.org/congress03252013.htm

Thanks

Shared on Twitter with a hashtag #StopMonsanto

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

surprisingly my Senator (rubio) voted NAY

well, at least that's is good.

Sometimes when

a well-connected politician who is positioning himself votes the way the people would want him to, it's more a sign of having the sway to earn the privilege of being the minority vote of descent against something unpopular that their masters want.

I remember in the early bail-out of this most recent economic downturn, when there was a huge campaign to get them not to do it. One politician said the calls to his office were "50% no, 50% hell no". If you looked up and down the list of the ones who voted no, they were mostly the ones up for re-election. It had everything to do with making sure their masters got their way and doling out the privilege of voting to look like they were listening to the people to the ones who'd paid their dues already.

Defend Liberty!

Be Cautious

Rubio might have voted the way Ron would have for this vote but I still don't think he can be trusted. More likely, I'm thinking he is voting this way to win trust (so he can stab the people in the back when it counts). Rubio probably was told not to vote for it since they probably already knew it was going to pass anyway and since it would keep him on track to co-opt the liberty movement.

believe me Rubio is not someone I trust

at all.

This isn't as evil as it is made out to be.

It took me some time to dig through all of this. Media research tip #1: An opinion article that fails to link or fully quote the subject of its attack, particularly if it links other opinion articles, may be making false accusations or using hyperbole. In this case, full-blown hyperbole.

HR 933 Sec 735 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c113:./temp/~c113k7GKW6
(PDF if that doesn't work) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr933enr/pdf/BILLS-113...

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

On the face, it seems ominous, allowing a petition to the Secretary of Agriculture to overrule denial of nonregulated status, which may apply to a GMO determined to be a plant pest or noxious weed. But that requires ignorance of the Plant Protection Act's Sections 411 and 412.

The Plant Protection Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c106:6:./temp/~c106ekS...

Sec. 411(c)(1-3)

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS BY REGULATION-

(1) EXCEPTION TO PERMIT REQUIREMENT- The Secretary may issue regulations to allow the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.

(2) PETITION TO ADD OR REMOVE PLANT PESTS FROM REGULATION- Any person may petition the Secretary to add a plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1).

(3) RESPONSE TO PETITION BY THE SECRETARY- In the case of a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall act on the petition within a reasonable time and notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary takes on the petition. The Secretary's determination on the petition shall be based on sound science.

Sec 412 (f)(1-3)

(f) NOXIOUS WEEDS-

(1) REGULATIONS- In the case of noxious weeds, the Secretary may publish, by regulation, a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted from entering the United States or that are subject to restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.

(2) PETITION TO ADD OR REMOVE PLANTS FROM REGULATION- Any person may petition the Secretary to add a plant species to, or remove a plant species from, the regulations issued by the Secretary under this subsection.

(3) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY- In the case of a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall act on the petition within a reasonable time and notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary takes on the petition. The Secretary's determination on the petition shall be based on sound science.

Petitions are already allowed. Any favoritism by being friends with someone in the secretary's office will already exist. Reading HR 933 again with that in mind reveals that all it does is not force a farm to shut down while its petition is being reviewed. This prevents a farm, Monsanto controlled or small-private, from not losing a season's worth of business if it turns out that their crop does not meet the criteria to be defined as a plant pest or noxious weed.

Perhaps instead of jumping on the war drums the moment someone says GMO or Monsanto (some of you are worse than Obama with a drone target list on this subject) maybe we should actually do some research. Any article that is going to make you go out and find a bill they are complaining about and then make you search through hundreds of pages to find the one paragraph they have a problem with may be misrepresenting things a bit.

Is this bill a good thing? No. It's an appropriations bill. If you read through it I'm sure you will find dozens of things to complain about. This just happens to be some odd trigger subject for some people. Does this one paragraph grant the Secretary of Agriculture any more poweer to overrule a court decision? No. That power already existed on this matter. All this does is prevent an injunction against the farm in question during a petition review.

That's not great (unless you are an innocent small farmer who did nothing wrong), but it isn't the free pass to GMOs it has been made out to be.

I went through that same exercise.

I still have two questions about that section, i.e., 735. (I mean, besides the question of how it got into a 570-page appropriations bill to begin with.) First, the use of "SHALL" in "shall... immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation..." That is, it's a COMMAND. Second the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law." This SUPERSEDES other laws?

"...the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation..."

Seems to me that means, REGARDLESS of other laws concerning "plant pests" (say a law banning a genetically-engineered product or products due to findings that it/they could cause serious harm to animals and humans and could irreversibly trigger destruction of the food chain - such as laws that exist in some other countries), the Agriculture Secretary MUST nonetheless grant a temporary permit for the farmer, et al, to be able to continue operating his business, for the mere asking.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Sorry, I don't believe this for an instant

All of this complicated legalize mumbo jumbo that can only be interpreted by a team of K Street lawyers is deliberately constructed this way for a reason:

Hardly anyone can follow it or read it.

It's murky and confusing to intimidate people into NOT reading it, so that the true purpose of the "rules" are hidden in the grey areas of "what does this actually mean in the real world".

The fact (not opinion, or interpretation) that Monsanto and the other major bio-tech firms are carrying out a deliberate, calculated, and comprehensive take-over of the world's commodity food supply is indisputable at this point.

That human manipulation of the DNA of basic food supply creates food that is completely unfit for human consumption and causes systemic disease, is part of the plan - as it churns even more wealth for the ultimate owners of these corporations while SIMULTANEOUSLY weakening and killing the worlds population (Win-Win scenario for them)

A tiny fraction of the worlds population (.14% - or approximately 10 million people) now control 95% of the worlds wealth and real assets.

Somewhere in that group of people are the puppet-masters that are the architects of this. They are fully aware of what they are doing

And this bill one more link in the chain, it's part of the plan.

Well you may be right. But I

Well you may be right. But I saw nothing in your comment about the litigation concerns that have so many groups all riled up. I'm still looking through the pdf, though.

You Make a Good Point

I would have to dig deeper into the details in order to evaluate this. But, it we do need to investigate any subject before responding in a knee jerk manner. That said, I am highly suspicious of GMO in general. I am outraged at the moves to keep its use in foods secret from people who might eat it.

There has to be more to this

There has to be more to this than we know. Why? Because Nancy Pelosi voted NO on this. That is enough for me. BUT, she could have just done it for her home district, knowing it would pass, anyway. I am sure tired of private corporations influencing state and federal laws. It really sucks.

'Monsanto Protection Act': 5

'Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-...

"Fascism is the system of

"Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society." http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/fascist-threat192.html

well played

Well played evil monsters. You've got the knack for timing your evil schemes!

Who cares...

If you don't want to eat GMO's then don't, I on the other hand will. Can't stand these supposed libertarians who want to control the food supply and what is and what isn't allowed to be grown. Not to mention that preventing such improvements would end up killings millions of people around the world.

lol

This comment is so wrong and deluded on so many levels it's like an Onion piece.

Thanks for today's laugh.

Youre free to do whatever you want . . .

more power to ya. But I would suggest doing some research on GMO. As a kid I grew up on a farm and spend a lot of time now in farm country. My background made me very skeptical about those who attacked GMO. After doing the research for myself, my views have changed completely. (I have a technical background.)

The problem is that people want to be able to make an informed choice in the matter. They want to know what's in their food so they can make that choice. Efforts are being pushed to prevent that labeling.

tasmlab's picture

Your right, and - but -

You're right, libertarians shouldn't clamor for control. And why be against food technology? It will likely be what ends starvation the world over.

This said, we shouldn't condone this blatant fascistic program by the government.

And that said, Monsanto's lobbying efforts and such are kind of small scale to other industries. They aren't any more sinister than GM, GE, the MIC, the banking complex, the industrial healthcare complex etc etc, that all have similar levels of fascism within their industries.

I guess food is just scarier. Esp to our agorism friends.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

"Fascism should more properly

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Are you serious?

? Utter nonsense.

no one's arguing to make them

no one's arguing to make them illegal. The problem is that it's illegal to label something as non-gmo. And giving monsanto judicial immunity?? I don't think i have to argue why that's an overreach of federal power...

Ok...

Well on that point I would agree, no individual, company or government should have judicial immunity.

Right on!

!!!

"Prior to the measure, courts

"Prior to the measure, courts had the ability to suspend the farming of GMO crops in the face of health or environmental risks."

so this bill, at least partially, deregulates farming. I thought that was a good thing.

Like I said...

it's a distraction.

Homosexuals could care less about being married...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

So now that he's acquired a second term...He can diss his base!

This gives more evidence that we really are a one party state; The Fascist Party.

There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the left or the right, the results are the same.~~ Francis A. Schaefffer

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15