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

[UnrepentantLiberal]

The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds --which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

More: http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

[ProSense]

1. If it's

"terrifying, why did Democrats vote to pass the bill and send it to the President: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022582817

"Terrifying items 3 and 4:

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

<...>

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

Item 3, is absurd and not terrifying.

Item 4 is ludicrous. I mean, keeping the government from shutting down, "gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8" should have taken a back seat to this faux outrage.

More information on the Monsanto rider. Also Democratic budget supports labeling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

[G_j]

2. Just curious

If Obama backs Keystone, will you be explaining to us why it's a good thing?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. Do you doubt her?

She's got that too. So chill the fuck out.

[ProSense]

10. Yeah, I responded

"Do you doubt her? She's got that too. So chill the fuck out."

...to the OP with some information and my opinion, and apparently that caught you by surprise that all you have are stupid comments.

[Sheepshank]

51. All that woo woo and not the actual verbage of the bill?

Rhetoric without substantiated facts.

Frankly getting tired of all the manufactured histrionics.

I don't like the idea of genetically engineered foods either...but to date, I have not seen the language (even though I have asked almost a dozen times) of the actual bill. I have not had a reponse to why liberal Dems signed on too.

This little circus train is silly.

[onenote]

67. see post 48 for the language of section 735

[sabrina 1]

7. This is what I have learned.

Eg, During the Bush years Democrats hated Offshore Drilling. Sarah Palin was mocked for her 'drill baby, drill' campaign slogan. She was ignorant. We were the smart ones.

I've learned since then that Sarah Palin was the smart one after all and that those who warned against Offshore Drilling for 30 years, were wrong. Offshore drilling is perfectly safe. And please do not remind me of the explosion shortly after we learned how wrong we were, that killed 11 men and destroyed the Gulf.

SS according to Democrats, was not in trouble. Anyone who even suggested such a thing, was a Republican.

Now I've learned that SS needs to be fixed, just like Republicans were saying all along. We were wrong, they were right.

Large Corporations like Monsanto were evil, according to Democrats. They needed to be regulated and they needed to label their products so that we knew what was in them. They were not to be trusted.

We were wrong again. Now I've learned that Monsanto is a benign, life-saving Corporation necessary to feed the world. I've learned that farmers in other countries and here, need Monsanto as they do not know how to feed themselves. Republicans told me this for years, I guess I owe them an apology!

I have learned so much over the past few years. Eg, we once hoped that war criminals would eventually be held accountable. Not any more, I've learned that this would be bad for this country and we were once again wrong to even suggest it. All those 'impeach Bush/Cheney demands, well I guess it was just politics.

I've also learned that Wall Street criminals were not actually criminals after all. When Bush bailed them out, we were wrong to protest him doing so, he was right, we were wrong. I've learned that no crimes were committed, immoral yes, but criminal no.

Every day I am learning new things. But most of all, I'm learning that Bush was not a bad guy after all, that we Democrats must have just misunderstood him and I keep remembering all the nasty things I said about Republicans and wonder how could we have been so wrong?

So, wrt to your question about the pipeline, you need to start revising your opinion on this too. Democrats, I am learning, are not very smart, Republicans apparently were right all along. That is why we now have a few of them and some Corporate CEOs appointed to our government.

You will soon be getting the information that will help you to be happy about the pipeline too. You can count on it. Unless by some remote chance, we Democrats were right about it after all. It would be nice to have been right about something, wouldn't it?

For the comprehension impaired!

[City Lights]

8. Most excellent post, sabrina!

[ProSense]

11. What

"This is what I have learned."

..."learned" is that obsession with all things anti-Obama trumps common sense.

It's patently absurd and utterly silly to believe the President was going to veto this bill. Even more silly to claim Congress didn't know about it just to hype the Obama blame.

[sabrina 1]

17. Um, did I mention Obama somewhere? During all the years I was fighting with

Republicans over all of these issues, did I do it because I was clairvoyant and knew one day I could use my opposition to Bush/Republican policies to 'blame' a future Democratic president for something?

Eg, I remember arguing for weeks with Republicans over Monsanto, that was back in about 2003. I had not yet even heard of Obama. Republicans were telling me that I needed to understand how Monsanto was 'feeding the world', 'preventing starvation' and that Liberals like me were just saying all those things because 'you hate Bush'.

Now, I'm saying the same things and people are telling me 'you just want to blame Obama'.

Can you unravel all of this for me please because I am very, very confused. I swear, I am not clairvoyant, I had no idea that one day Democrats would be be telling me the same things Republicans were telling me back then. I genuinely believed that Monsanto was an evil corporation and I was not, as Republicans accused me of, just saying what I was saying to 'blame Bush for something'.

Should we just be quiet maybe? Even when a Republican is in the WH so that we don't risk a future where we could be accused of just 'hating' Democrats for opposing policies supported by Republicans?

Eg, the Keystone Pipeline. I really, really do believe it is a bad idea for the country. But what if it is approved? Would that mean I just think so because a Dem happens to be president at the time, should that happen, and I hope it won't?

[ProSense]

19. No, I did

Remember you learned what you did during the Bush years, and I learned what I did since Obama became President.

Again, it's patently absurd and utterly silly to believe the President was going to veto this bill. Even more silly to claim Congress didn't know about it just to hype the Obama blame.

[sabrina 1]

23. Yes, you did. Just like I never mentioned Bush to Republicans since issues for me

have zero to do with politicians and everything to do with how they affect PEOPLE. But Republicans always introduced Bush to the discussions. I guess they thought it would be a distraction from the main issue. Bush to me was merely a tool, so I rarely engaged in 'blaming' him for the awful policies we are still dealing with.

As for this President vetoing the bill, since, as you admit, this rider was not a secret, it was not 'slipped into the bill at the last minute by Republicans' it was well known about for at least one year, the question is NOT why it was not vetoed, one of the questions is 'why was it not stopped from being placed in any bill one year ago. Even if Republicans passed it in Congress, we DO have control of the Senate and a warning to them that if it reached the Senate, it would be stopped, would have enough to make them reveal themselves to the public, to force a conversation about it.

Instead, Democrats just went along with it, they did not even try to stop it, except for two of them that I know of. Tester's amendment did not even get a vote. Democrats voted for it, rather than voting against it which would have made it possible for a veto.

Iow, there was not even a fight, not even a scuffle and now anyone who dares to continue to hold the opinions they always held on this Giant Corporation, are being told they 'hate Obama'. A stupid, ridiculous distraction that does the exact opposite of what is intended, just as it was a stupid, ridiculous distraction when Republicans did the same thing regarding Bush.

What have you learned btw, about Monsanto, from Obama? You were not clear, are you saying you knew nothing about them during the Bush years?

[rhett o rick]

63. "patently absurd and utterly silly" are not very strong arguments. Sounds more like opinion.

And I think I understand you to be saying that there is no way the Pres would veto this bill. So apparently Congress has his number. They can slip something terrible into the bill and the pres is powerless. The veto is one of his tools.

[green for victory]

15. 5 Orwells! ***** each word drips tears of love. nice work

GMO Donkey Kick

[UnrepentantLiberal]

16. I learned that slaughtering wolves is perfectly acceptable.

And that the mass firing of teachers and privatizing of schools is the way to go. And that unions should be done away with.

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, my list was not complete, but I have learned many things over the past

few years, the most alarming to me personally, was that Palin was apparently right with here 'Drill baby, Drill' slogan after all. I was so certain that woman was a joke with that silly slogan.

[Poll_Blind]

32. +1 nt

PB

[raouldukelives]

56. + 1000! Perhaps we owe them an apology for being so wrong all the time? nt

[woo me with science]

72. [phone]

Should be an OP.

[SixString]

83. +1

[progressoid]

99. ^^^+1000^^^This^^^

[ProSense]

9. What

"If Obama backs Keystone, will you be explaining to us why it's a good thing?"

...the fuck does that have to do with the OP?

Did you wake up this morning and decide it was your turn to play Ted Cruz?

[sabrina 1]

12. What do you think about Monsanto? Is it a great, life-saving Corporation

after all? Because that is what I am being told now and I'm having a hard time forgetting all I learned about their practices and their influence on our Government, remember how Bush Sr. was so friendly to them eg? And how outraged we Democrats used to be about the power they were given by Republicans?

Never mind, I probably imagined all of it.

[ProSense]

14. Well,

"What do you think about Monsanto? Is it a great, life-saving Corporation after all? Because that is what I am being told now..."

...since I'm not the one who "told" you that, maybe you should have this discussion with the person who did.

Don't confuse me with a Monsanto fan because I think it's absurd to believe that the President was going to veto the spending bill.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. Do you think it's absurd that Obama has Monsanto executives in his Administration?

[ProSense]

21. Hey,

take your Joe McCarthy act somewhere else.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

22. If I was McCarthy that would be a false accusation.

But there they are along with Wall Street executives and prosecutors who refuse to prosecute Wall Street.

[sabrina 1]

29. Should we remain silent then on all issues of importance, should we not ask

where people stand on important issues because if we dare to ask, we are now going to be compared to 'McCarthy'? I have been called that many times, but never by a Democrat for simply asking a question.

I have no problem answering questions when people ask me where I stand on any issue. Why do you compare someone asking a simple question, to McCarty? I find that to be very rude.

[ProSense]

38. Oh look

"Should we remain silent then on all issues of importance, should we not ask"

...a straw man. I don't think Americans are terrified that the President signed a bill that will prevent more hardship.

"Why do you compare someone asking a simple question, to McCarty? I find that to be very rude."

What's rude is constant interrogation about unrrelated topics instead of sticking to the point.

You want to talk about "rude," here's my first response to the OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022601987#post1

Here's the reaction to that comment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602032
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602102

You don't care about people being rude. You simply want to throw up straw men to bolster your argument, which isn't convincing.

[sabrina 1]

43. I see questions, I do not see rude. When you constantly

defend policies that most progressives oppose, you should expect to be asked for clarification. It happens to all of us all of the time and we either answer the questions or ignore them.

There is no excuse for comparing Democrats on DU to McCarthy. Just none, sorry.

Questions about political issues and policies on a Political forum are NOT 'interrogations' they are questions, they happen all the time, every day. It is what political forums are about. The only time anyone might object to questions, such as 'where do you stand on the Keystone Pipeline' (I, eg, have no problem with that question) is if they have some reason for not wanting to answer it. Which is fine, just say 'I don't wish to answer that question'. Or ignore it.

[ProSense]

45. Yeah,

"I see questions, I do not see rude. When you constantly"

...you would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602102

[Bonobo]

69. "unrrelated topics" --are you serious?

I mean, you are seriously claiming that having ex-Monsanto people in the Admin is "unrelated"?

No, I don't think you could be that stupid...so you must be playing or pretending.

[ProSense]

71. Actually,

"'unrrelated topics' --are you serious?"

...I suspect if you knew how serious I was, your head would likely explode.

"I mean, you are seriously claiming that having ex-Monsanto people in the Admin is "unrelated"?

No, I don't think you could be that stupid...so you must be playing or pretending."

Maybe, since you're an expert on "stupid," you can point to that question in the examples I cited here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602367

I'll post the links here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602032
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602102

[Bonobo]

74. Non-sequitor. nt

[rhett o rick]

93. Let's compare arguments. One side says that Pres Obama seems too friendly to Monsanto and

provides examples. The other argument is that questioning the president is silly, absurd and ludicrous, with some "McCarthy" misdirection thrown in.

I do not support Monsanto's GMO program. Do you?

[woo me with science]

107. +1 I find that summarizing the arguments

is often the very best way to expose the bullshit.

[Sheepshank]

53. Oh Gawd...the silenced martyr syndrome striking yet again n/t

[sabrina 1]

68. Oh Gawd! The old familiar right wing talking points against Liberals make their

way to DU, again!

You know what I'm going to for you when I have some time? It's a favor, so no need to thank me. I'm going to make a list of all the words prepared back when Bush became president, for Limbaugh, Hannity et al to use against Liberals, every day, repeatedly, with the intention of planting an 'impression' in the minds of the public, to undermine Democrats.

One of the first ones was 'Martyr'. See, Democrats all have a 'martyr' syndrome, according to the Far Right.

Now, I'm sure you weren't aware of the propaganda, probably just picked it up, as they were VERY effective.

I did laugh I have to admit, the first time you used it. Couldn't help thinking how much of a failure it turned out to be. But people might get the wrong idea about any democrat tossing out right wing propaganda against other democrats, which I'm sure is purely by accident. But it never hurts to be informed.

Although I have to say, it was clever, and you yourself do seem to feel like a martyr whenever anyone here says something you don't understand. Not to worry, here you will only hear Democratic principles being expressed, so no need to feel like a martyr!

[Sheepshank]

70. Actaully I'm durecting the martyr thing at one person only.....

no use in trying to pretend I've levelled this same title to anyone else, or another group. I actually don't see this syndrom from more that a couple of people at DU. COngratualtions...it's all yours.

[sabrina 1]

75. Martyrs, all over the place, on the Left! And when challenged, no 'it's just you'!

Thanks for the laugh!

I miss the old days fighting with Republicans! They were so easy!

[Sheepshank]

84. reverse psych...you've been doing it a lot in the last few posts. It's obvious and a fail n/t

[sabrina 1]

89. When something is a 'fail' shouldn't you just ignore it because if you're right

everyone will see it for themselves without you working so hard to convince them? I'm not worried, playing the martyr because someone disagrees with me is not my thing!

[Sheepshank]

92. y-e-a-h right

you've rung that bell so many times you don't even realize you're doing it...or you are pretending.

I used to read many of your past posts with interest...you seemed to make some sense but recently, the continued dogma, or perhaps your recipe for responding (I'm being silenced I won't let that happen, I'm a true democrate, so good and wonderful and noble and I speak of xxx and xxx etc etc )has overpowered your words and they seem rather empty. Coming back at those who don't agree with you by twisting their own words, lying and creating a stand they never took, trying to paint people into a corner by demanding a response to ridiculous questions.....it's all a continued strategy of your, and now that I have recognized it, it's all I ever see in your posts.

[sabrina 1]

94. I'm actually conducting an experiment. Would you like to know the results?

[Sheepshank]

103. This should be good....go for it

[rhett o rick]

109. Why dont you direct your comments towards issues instead of trying to ridicule posters?

It is a rhetorical question, I know the answer.

[sabrina 1]

110. Lol, with so many comments, not one was about

the issues, all were personal, which is always the case when someone has no points to make. It did keep the thread kicked though. I believe in turning lemons into lemonade. So rather than providing nothing of value to the thread, comments like that, with no substance can be used to keep the thread alive giving others a chance to see it.

[rhett o rick]

112. I see signs of desperation. Personal attacks in lieu of substance. nm

[Sheepshank]

113. Actually that is exactly what I have been trying to get.

and as for personal attacks, unless you have been privvy to the past several threads and read all that Ms Sabrina has proffered, I'd chose not to be a buttinski if I were you.

[rhett o rick]

114. I must have missed it. So tell us do you favor Monsanto's GMO program?

Are you ok with the President's appointments of former Monsanto executives?

Do you side with the millions of citizens that want GMO's labeled and Monsanto held responsible for possible harm?

These are the issues that we need to discuss but the issues that the corporatists dont want us to discuss.

If a bill comes to the President with some terrible language, do you think the President has an obligation to send it back and get it rewritten or just roll over?

[Sheepshank]

115. already addressed in previous posts

and you incoprporating the same attack mode trying to paint me into a corner is exactly my beef with Ms Sabrina.

[rhett o rick]

116. You called her a martyr and then call her responses "attacks".

You refuse to discuss the issues here, instead calling it a "circus train", yet you are still in here trying to distract.

What is your objective? Some are trying to discuss the issues.

In any case I am done with this exchange aimed at distraction.

[Sheepshank]

119. you have no clue what you are talking about...you have no background on any of this

I gave her back copies her own statements with links providing her continued presumptions that she is being silenced. She assumes to judge others, as you appear to be doing, without the whole picture.

I have already discussed my stand on this issue and the fact is you simply want to try and turn this into a "Sheepshank loves Monsato" PoS assumption. your actions are transparent and misleading and disingenious.

You have no standing in this particular part of the discussion with Ms. Sabrina, whom I assume is a big girl and is still to post some sort of experiment....unless you are the experiment?

[rhett o rick]

121. I have read your posts and wonder why you are in this thread? Is your intent to discuss

the issue of the "Monsanto/Obama" connection? Or to deflect the discussion to something else?

[Sheepshank]

122. your intent?...you have made several posts unrelated ot the OP as well.

pot/kettle?

[rhett o rick]

123. I have stated clearly in this thread that I dont like Monsanto's GMO. And I dont like Monsanto

bullying our government. I dont like my president kowtowing to Monsanto and other big corporations.

You've done nothing but try to deflect the discussion.

I wouldnt bother to answer you except you keep kicking this important thread.

[G_j]

24. The only connection w the the OP

is that your response prompted me to wonder if you would have concerns over any of Obama's policies.

[ProSense]

30. When exactly

"The only connection w the the OP is that your response prompted me to wonder if you would have concerns over any of Obama's policies."

...did this provision become one of "Obama's policies." Do you have a link to him pushing for this provision?

Before you jump on Obama over the Monsanto amendment, take a minute and read this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022580015

The “Monsanto Protection Act”, and why you were duped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022590655

[sabrina 1]

37. Did he not receive the over one quarter of a million petition asking that he

help to stop the rider from being attached to the bill?

True, petitions from citizens are not important any more in this democracy, but it's hard to say no one knew about this rider until the Republicans slipped it into the bill during the dark of night and the Dems were taken by surprise.

Why, eg, Did Tester's amendment not even get a vote?

[ProSense]

42. What exactly

"Did he not receive the over one quarter of a million petition asking that he help to stop the rider from being attached to the bill?"

...is it about "it's absurd to believe the President was going to veto the spending bill" that you don't understand?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022582817

Believe is or not the President signing this bill is only an issue to those engaging in faux outrage.

I mean, even the activists have moved on to preventing it from being inserted in legislation after it expires in six months.

More information on the Monsanto rider. Also Democratic budget supports labeling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

[sabrina 1]

49. I gave you some facts about the rider. You have chosen to respond with more

insults to those who genuinely have genuine concerns about this issue.

Now you say that 'even the activists have moved on to trying to prevent it from being inserted in the bill'.

So, at the risk of being called McCarthy, do you support the activists' work, (you know that Monsanto has been given six months to do whatever harm they can while we wait, btw.)

And what if Democrats do what they did regarding the work of activists in six months time? What is there to give us hope that anything will change, that we won't hear once again, 'it is ludicrous to expect the president to veto this bill'.

Iow, where do YOU stand on these issues, or is that a McCarthy type question?

I ask because you seem to be in every thread about Monsanto, and if you want credibility for your comments on a subject that seems important to you, then people need to know where you stand. Otherwise, if you don't want to say where you stand, we can simply dismiss your posts on the subject.

[G_j]

39. apologies..

I should have said, policies, actions, appointments, statements etc.

[G_j]

27. Funny how you managed to compare

two DU progressives with Cruz
and McCarthy.

[ProSense]

31. Hey,

"Funny how you managed to compare two DU progressives with Cruz and McCarthy."

...if the shoe fits. Oh, and do you think self-declaring people as "progressives" means they are?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

36. The old Republican pretending to be a liberal accusation.

[sabrina 1]

40. That shoe does not ever fit any Progressive I have ever known. McCarthy?

Shameful, really. If you don't want to answer a question, then just ignore it, but it is reprehensible to use these tactics here, and if you have a case to make, this will ensure you will not be taken seriously.

Make the case for the bill without name-calling and personal attacks. We have always been of the opinion that once someone resorts to such tactics, they have no case to make. I would have thought you would have known that frankly.

[ProSense]

73. Oh please. Stop with the self-righteous drivel. n/t

[sabrina 1]

80. My comment could only be considered 'self-righteous' in the derogatory sense

if you believe that democrats asking questions compares even remotely to McCarthy's witch hunting.

[ProSense]

88. Take it however you choose

Shoe fits.

[G_j]

41. I know who I am

the other person you referred to, has been here for years as I have, and yes they are!

[whatchamacallit]

100. I'll take that as a 'yes' n/t

[ProSense]

91. Just curious

Why do you think people are ignoring this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602915

[woo me with science]

28. Oh look. Prosense Logic! ........ Prosense, Newspeak, Doubleplusgood!

Prosense's Trump Card Argument: How can anything possibly be terrifying or wrong if DEMOCRATS support it?! ......

Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Obama administration reversing freedoms we’ve had since the Magna Carta
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022345973

US to Award Medals for Killing Civilians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022380102

US Military Approves Purposely Bombing Children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

What I am seeing is a purposeful plot to destroy public schools, and to profit from the destruction
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2563400

Obama/Duncan/Gates School "Reform" Model: The results Are IN !!! (And they are chilling)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2588780

Chained CPI: An economic and moral disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381690

Obama administration retreats from environmental regulations
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x557132

Obama's FDA Quietly Increases Radiation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021953775

Obama signs Monsanto/GMO Protection Act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574577

The GMO that Could Have Killed Nearly All Life on Earth
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022573146

Obama's FBI Pursuing Real-Time Gmail Spying Powers as 'Top Priority' for 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022578106

Obama's deficit reduction plan uses the despicable "two-tier" union-busting strategy on Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022018500

Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

The Obama Administration is Aggressively Growing Private Prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022568681

Barack Obama’s Economic Legacy: The Billionaire-Boosting Big Four on His Wish List
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022581330

Obama backs Trans Pacific Plan that will end almost all American Dreams http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022518705

Obama signals "retreat" on Keystone Pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022518030

Obama administration to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022504417

Federal Judge Finds Obama Admin's National Security Surveillance Letters Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022515057

Obama To GOP: I’m Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507004

Most Democrats not opposing cuts to Social Safety Nets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512555

Obama picks serial defender of corrupt banks for SEC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275024

Obama picks architect of "Kill Lists," defender of torture, drones, and telecom immunity for CIA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022153194

Obama picks Monsanto exec. with history of lying about food safety for FDA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

Obama retains Eric Holder, marijuana warrior but friend of corrupt banks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251251944

THIS is the economy in which Democrats are doing these things:

War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength,
and Nothing could POSSIBLY be terrifying if it is supported by Democrats!

[ProSense]

33. OMG

a wall of "blue links"!

[no_hypocrisy]

3. How long does the Monsanto Protection Act last?

Indefinitely? For the term of the stop-gap budget (months)?

[G_j]

4. 6 months

which is 6 months too many

[no_hypocrisy]

13. We'll need that time to get ready with an alternative bill.

Next time we will be prepared.

[sabrina 1]

35. We were prepared this time. A petition signed by over a quarter of a million

people was sent to the WH to try to stop this rider from being attached to the bill. That was months ago. Contrary to what we are supposed to believe, it was not 'slipped quietly' into the bill without anyone knowing about it. Activists have been working for a year to try to get it stopped.

Sen. Tester wrote an amendment to the bill, but it never even received a vote.

Rep. Defazio also tried to stop it, but got nowhere.

But I'm sure it will be 'fixed' like Clinton's Welfare Reform, the Patriot Act, the Bush Tax Cut, and all the other temporary legislation we've endured over the past several decades.

Just trust them, and be quiet, lest you be compared to McCarthy or accused of 'hating' the president. It is utterly ridiculous what is going on. I wonder when we face the fact that Corporations won and start from there.

[onenote]

102. Why do you think this is a "temporary" provision?

I see absolutely nothing in the CR that would cause this provision to "sunset" after six months. The fact that it was included in a CR that authorizes specific spending amounts for the rest of this fiscal years does not mean that a non-spending provision somehow ceases to be effective unless a specific expiration date is included in the law. And, as I said, i don't see one.

[sabrina 1]

105. You have a point. Frankly I don't believe it is temporary anyhow. But I did

read your post above, one of the best posts regarding this whole mess actually btw imon .

I have also Sen .Tester's statements on the rider and his concerns are that it will prevent the courts, and he does say 'temporarily', from being able to act on consumer complaints about Monsanto during this time.

I believe you didn't see that in the bill. I will link to his comments on on Democracy now when I get a chance, (taking care of dinner right now) where he does talk about why he believes this is such bad legislation.

As I said though he believes that this is temporary but that even then it was a terrible idea.

Bbl, thanks for your comments.

[onenote]

106. Its temporary not because the legislation expires

What is temporary is the reinstatement of a products non-regulated status (superseding an decision finding that it should be regulated) on an interim (i.e., temporary) basis, pending a determination by the Secretary of Agriculture as to whether the petition for non-regulated status should be granted permanently.

Here's the language:

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.

[onenote]

65. Actually, I don't see anything that would cause the provision to expire in six months

The fact that the CR funds the government for six months doesn't mean that statutory changes included in a CR also expire. It is fairly routine for statutory amendments to be included in appropriations bills and unless there is an express sunset, those changes are permanent.

To give just one example: In 1999, Congress incorporated the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act into the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The approporiations provisions in the law, like all appropriations, only were for the upcoming fiscal year. The other amendments, including major revisions and additions to the Copyright Act, were permanent unless otherwise stated.

[TM99]

26. It is temporary...

just like the Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act.

Don't forget that the ACA was the best we could do pragmatically, and therefore, it is only an incremental step towards something better that will eventually get passed.

Also, please remember the all Iraqis will greet us with laurels and parades as we are their liberators.

Just be patient. Hope and change take time.

[Autumn]

5. I find 2 and 3 to be the worst and the most clear example of what

is wrong with the whole thing. These politicians do not represent the people.

[Coyotl]

34. knr

[woo me with science]

44. Had enough yet, America?

Had enough of the assaults, and the propaganda, and the lies?

Had enough?

[ProSense]

46. This is more "terrifying"

to most Americans: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602285

[DeSwiss]

47. Bullshit.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

- The Executive branch cannot tell the judicial branch what cases they can or cannot hear. Fucking PERIOD.

K&R

[woo me with science]

50. What an interesting concept!

Seems like so many of those quaint old foundations of our system are going by the wayside...

[DeSwiss]

54. What's even more interesting.....

...is neither has the concept been mentioned in the MSM.

[woo me with science]

59. Imagine that. It's all doubleplusgood, and legal!

We truly live in chilling times.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Is your nick intended to be ironic? Seriously.

[woo me with science]

62. Welcome, Corporate Defense Team!

Your insults will surely distract Americans from what is being done to them through legislation!

[Buzz Clik]

79. So, all the lack of scientific understanding behind this hysteria doesn't bother you?

[woo me with science]

85. You need to make up your mind.

Is there a lack of scientific understanding of what Monsanto is doing to our food for profit, or is the science definitive that Monsanto is doubleplusgood?!

Because if it's the latter, you still are ostentatiously ignoring my question:

Why on earth does Monsanto need all this legislative PROTECTION?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602704

[Buzz Clik]

96. I have no comment on the legislation, but you continue to ignore my question:

Why would someone whose nick implies a love of science so gleefully post in support of a thread that is devoid of scientific basis?

[onenote]

55. Except Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts.

Marbury v. Madison establishes that for those cases that are within the jurisdiction of the court, it is the court that ultimately decides "what the law is." However, under the constitution, the jurisdiction of the courts, except with respect to certain categories of cases expressly enumerated in the constitution, the jurisdiction of the courts is subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make." In fact, while the Constitution mandates that there be a Supreme Court, the establishment of district courts and circuit courts of appeals is left entirely to the discretion of Congress ("The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congresss may, from time to time, ordain and establish."

[woo me with science]

57. ...

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Hitler never broke the law, he just made the illegal, legal. Welcome to Bush's...er, Obama's... America...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1386641


Every day, every day, we sink deeper into the nightmare of a corporate-controlled State.

[Occulus]

76. "Every day, every day, we sink deeper into the nightmare of a corporate-controlled State."

Sadly, I'm starting to think the only way to reverse what's being done is to simply let it happen, let it all fall apart, and let everyone suffer until they're angry enough to do something.

And no, that doesn't please me to say. At all.

[onenote]

48. The "monsanto" provision is bad legislation,but the article in the OP is riddled with errors

As I've posted on several occasions, I wish that the Monsanto provision had not been included in the Continuing Resolution to fund the government or that a vote had been allowed on the amendment to strip that provision from the bill. That being said, however, it is not at all helpful when the opponents of the provision make numerous misstatements in their articles opposing the provision. Which is the case with the article cited in the OP.

First, I don't claim to be a substantive expert on the monsanto provision, but just reading it on its face, it doesn't seem to be as sweeping as the article claims. In particular, it doesn't seem on its face to prevent challenges to GMO seeds indefinitely. This is section 735 in its entirety:

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act H. R. 933—35 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.

Maybe someone can show me where I'm wrong, but on its face, this provision states that where a plant product (such as GMO seed) has been found to be non-regulated (i.e.,it can be used without restriction) and that determination is vacated or invalidated, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to treat the product as being deregulated on an interim basis, while a petiton for non-regulated status is reviewed. It does not prevent the Secretary from denying that petition or otherwise permanently confer deregulated status. That being said, even the temporary relief granted by the provision is a bad idea. However, overstating what the provision does simply serves up a softball for the supporters of the bill who can rebut the overstated claims and, in so doing, make it sound like the bill isn't as bad as it is.

Second, the claim that Section 735 was a "hidden backroom" deal and that most members didn't know it was in the bill is ludicrous. The provision originated in June 2012 when it was approved by the House Agriculture committee. At the time, opponents of the provision were quite vocal and sought to organize opposition to the provision both on and off the Hill. That provision was taken and put into the continuing resolution as part of a the agriculture appropriations section largely because the agriculture appropriations provision including the monsanto provision had been approved by the House Agriculture committee on a bipartisan basis with only one dissenting vote in full committee. It couldn't have been a secret since it was submitted on March 11 and on March 13 (the first possible day for offering amendments), Senator Tester and six other Democrats co-sponsored an amendment to delete the provision. It is inconceivable that the Tester's staff and the staffs of the other six Democrats did not make an effort to garner support for their amendment with every other Democratic Senate office during the week leading up to the March 20 vote on the CR. If they didn't do so, and if the groups trying to get support for the Tester amendment didn't do so, then shame on them.

Third, while its true that the President signed the CR on March 26, the same day as the Prop 8 argument, any implication that the two events are related also is ludicrous. The CR had to be signed or the government would shut down. And given the fact that the CR had passed by a veto-proof margin, with majority Democratic support in the House and virtually unanimous support in the Senate, and given in particular the fact that the six other Democrats that had co-sponsored the Tester amendment still voted for the CR even though it contained Section 735, the President's signature on the bill was a foregone conclusion the day it was passed by Congress.

Finally, and this is a bit strange, the article claims that the provision will expire in six months. In fact, I see nothing in the legislation that would sunset Section 735. It is routine for statutory changes unrelated to appropriations to be included in a spending bill and those changes, unless otherwise expressly stated, are permanent. What I don't get is why the article would make it sound like this is just a temporary measure when, in fact, the strongest argument against it is that it is a permanent change in law that was enacted without being vetted in a hearing and without opponents being given an opporunity to debate it on the floor.

[judesedit]

52. Move to Peru. They've banned ALL GMO's. Btw. Some GMO foods actually save many who would starve due

to drought, cold weather, etc. Crops cannot be grown is some climates so the seed modifying actually is a good thing there. I'd rather my starving children eat GMO food than dirt. Unfortunately, that is a reality.

[Buzz Clik]

60. Holy shit!

Where did you come from?

Someone who spouts knowledge in a sea of ignorance?

Mercy!

[Buzz Clik]

58. Thumbs up to ProSense for standing against the tide.

The Monsanto Is Evil squad here at DU is loud, angry, and totally ignorant of the science behind the GMOs they despise.

Every time one of these goofy threads pops up, someone is willing to stand up against it, citing solid science that is instantly dismissed.

Luddite. Am I spelling it correctly?

(btw, I don't like Monsanto's business practices -- just in case you decided you wanted to argue that)

[woo me with science]

64. "citing solid science" ROFL!

Yes, the safety of GMO's, and, really, everything that Monsanto is doing to our food to ramp up profits, is incontrovertible.

In that case, I am still waiting for the answer to the million dollar question all the corporate defenders constantly ignore:

Then why does Monsanto need all this legislative PROTECTION?!

[sabrina 1]

77. And the other one, 'why won't they label their products'? You would think they

would be proud to advertise this solid science wouldn't you?

[Buzz Clik]

81. So much noise.

[woo me with science]

87. No answer?

There never is.

[ProSense]

66. I wasn't

"Thumbs up to ProSense for standing against the tide.

The Monsanto Is Evil squad here at DU is loud, angry, and totally ignorant of the science behind the GMOs they despise."

....defending Monsanto. It's not an either or. Monsanto's practices are separate from the issus of the President signing th spending bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022582817

[Buzz Clik]

82. I have never defended Monsanto. Ever.

Yet, when I see stupidity draped all over the anti-Monsanto threads and point it out, I get the same cheery welcome you get.

[woo me with science]

86. ROFL!

[sabrina 1]

90. Lol, I know, I was laughing too!

[Buzz Clik]

97. Please feel free to accept the challenge: quote me where I defended Monsanto.

Good luck.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Care to quote me defending Monsanto?

Please do.

[Buzz Clik]

104. Are you going to quote where I defended Monsanto?

Are you going to put some substance behind your snark?

Of course not.

[Bobbie Jo]

118. Yeah

I didn't think so either. Typical passive aggressive nonsense.

[L0oniX]

117. "solid science" LMFAO n/t

[Newest Reality]

78. Another example of

the sheer and blatant kochery in the system these days.

I mean, its all koched-up. Kochism might turn out to be the greatest enemy we have ever faced and Monsanto is certainly entrenched and kochifying what's left of our assumptions about the nature of politics and economics.

It leaves you koched-out!

[Babel_17]

98. Are somewhat getting mired in the details and the blame game?

Monsanto exists to generate profit. Part of how they do that is by genetically modifying the seeds that are planted to grow food. Often the way they do that is by developing a "Frankenseed". Using methods that only exist in a lab they squeeze genetic material into existing seed stocks.

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf

That Monsanto needs to be regulated and monitored is obvious. That Monsanto will spend money and effort to circumvent regulation and accountability is also obvious.

Monsanto got to further their game because their money and efforts paid off. Calling attention to their win is ok in my books. Asking to know how it happened is also ok.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/supreme-court-to-hear-monsanto-seed-patent-case.html?pagewanted=all

I can imagine a court needing to say, hypothetically, "No, you can't plant that here."

Both legally and biologically, Monsanto seeds pack a wallop.

Though I currently choose to avoid GMO products I certainly understand the need to feed the world. We may very well owe our future to companies like Monsanto. I just don't trust them to the point of complacency.

[Isoldeblue]

101. This is a complete contradiction to the nutrition program the FLOTUS

is promoting. Michelle tells the egg rolling crowd to eat their veggies... Thanks, but NO GMO veggies for me, please.

I'm sorry, but this just boggles my mind that Monsanto will be protected from their Frankenstein food's damage to agriculture. The pollen from them can and will destroy REAL plants and become totally resistant to any herbicides.

This is indeed terrifying!
There has to be a way for this bill to be rescinded.

[jazzimov]

108. "This is a complete contradiction to the nutrition program the FLOTUS

is promoting."

Exactly. Which should tell you something about the article and similar "poutrage" over this one provision in a spending bill.

[sabrina 1]

111. Poutrage ... another made up word people think is 'cool'. Anyhow, tell it to Sen.

Tester, his engaging in 'poutrage' over something as bad as this, is fine by me. Big Corporations get to write our legislation now to benefit themselves, and we have people here trying to persuade us that it's no big deal?? I guess Monsanto spent all that time and money for nothing!!

What are they trying to hide? I hope no one dies before we find out. But people dying when we have a politician to defend?? Why should we worry our beautiful minds about that? Unbelievable!

[HiPointDem]

120. "one provision" -- with large effects. dumb comment.