It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
obama is a terrorist and a threat to our country, when will this man be executed for treason is what i want to know????




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013

Conservatives want less government involvement in the private sector. Dont you think when the POTUS (government) is making decisions that affect the private sector (corporations) this is EXACTLY what conservatives are trying to prevent??!





So it is said... What conservatives fail to recognize is that the private sectors seeks out relations with the government. The involvement in government is initiated when the private sector buys and funds politicians
and their campaigns. IF conservatives were trying to prevent government involement in the privite sector,
why did Conservative Supreme court memebr vote to allow unlimited finacial influence on politicans, who latter become the government. I mean that is a hell of a way to ensure and solidify the private sector's role in the government, yet you claim that you advocate the opposite, there appears to be an incongruent gap between
desired result and actual policy or maneuvering.

Corporations are chartered, they are fake you know? They are subject to laws and standards upon which their charters are issued, Monsanto would have NEVER happen two hundred years ago even if the technology existed back then, the politicians of the day would have revoke Monsanto's charter or ensured that they adhered to their charted mission. Modern conservative logic here is nill, zip, zilch, maybe you can tell me WHO WILL CURTAIL
MONSANTO???

Really what I read is, there is nothing anyone can do in regards to Monsanto, the best way to stop them is to let them do what ever they want. Can you explain how Monsanto can be stopped and who has the capacity to do it?

Thanks, Devil
edit on 3-6-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


See

Yup



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Mutation's here we come!
every one should put a small poster up at all food shops
telling people about this.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
F'ing sell out. I do not understand how people still choose to follow this puppet. Liberals, progessives and leftists should be having a poo storm over this. It doesn't matter what party the president belongs too, all answer to their corporate and banking masters. This makes me sick.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Gosh
everyday I read things like that on ATS and I am sure glad I don't live in the US anymore

after the arab srping , let get the US summer rolling



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Can we NOT make this a partisan issue Liberals vs Conservatives? That is ridiculous. Granted there are many good point on either side and hypocritical actions abound, but on both sides. Let us take this for what it is: An issue that effects humanity.

All the bickering amongst ourselves and assigning blame only serves TPTB and not the people.

With that said I would like to play Advocate for the Devil:

While it looks like GMO food is bad it does reduce food prices and allow more food to be grown and more people to not starve. Possibly in the future with crop failures it could have the opposite effect but that is difficult to prove when failing crops can be "Fixed" to not fail in the future.

So my question is how can we ask the average poor citizen of the world to oppose GMO right now when it means they can feed their family that would otherwise go hungry? A starving person does not care for future risks only to get through the day with something in their stomachs and love em or hate em the large food conglomerates are doing this.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by alyoshablue
It's actions like these that make me literally think that something BIG is coming down the pike. The reason being is that this food is documented to cause all sorts of illness in any animal that eats it - including humans. Reeks of depopulation agenda to me.

Further, include the seed banks in your thinking. Once you have the population size where you want it, destroy the GMO crops and use the good seed again.

From beginning to end of this agenda, Monsanto will make billions along with their crony lobbyists and politicians. Additionally, they will use the GMO crops as economic muscle when the US Government wants any country to do what it wants. Hospitals, Insurance Agencies, Pharma-Corp all rakes in billions on human illness.

Surprisingly, Monsanto put up it's latest commercial on YouTube and its too saucy to embed, so I will link to it instead.

Monsanto Commercial Link: www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-6-2011 by alyoshablue because: Typos


Most if not all prosessed food RUINS the human being. If you're 20 years old, you might not realize it yet, but when you get to be over 35, then you'll know. And it's not the aging process, it's the FOOD. It's killing us all.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I am confused, what happened to the balance of power?

Also, does this mean that Organic Crops will be affected as well?

Holy Moly, there is no stopping Osama, I mean Obama.......



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This is NOT free market, this is cronyism and lobbying


You can deny it all you want to, but this is ABSOLUTELY free market capitalism in its purest form.

Sure, cronyism put Vilsack in as the Secretary of Agriculture, and lobbying for free market deregulation influenced his decision regarding these GMO products; however, those two influences have now limited governmental power in the industry, and opened up the market for these products. Deregulation/no-regulation is the absolute foundation of free market ideals, and that is exactly what has occurred here. Again, people argue for "Free Market" deregulation non-stop... until they actually get it.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Under a true free market society with limited govt. you would absolutely NOT have this


You absolutely would, and DO, have this. Limiting governmental intervention/power on the market is exactly what they've done through this deregulation. It is everything you're asking for, but refuse to admit.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
the only thing that needs more regulation is Govt. not the people


Exactly, and as a corporation Monsanto has the rights of a "person". Since you feel people don't need more regulation, then you should be more than happy that Monsanto has had these superfluous governmental regulations removed. Monsanto has invested time and money developing their products, and it's not fair for a government to restrict/nanny the market and tell them that they can't freely sell and produce their goods.

If you feel this deregulation is wrong, then you are against free market capitalism. I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing, but people need to be honest with themselves when it comes to what they wish for. The notion of free market capitalism is a nice dream in a fantasy land where corporations are all altruistic in their endeavors; however, in the real world corporations exist for one purpose... profits. They're concerned with "can we", and not "should we". As long as they "can", and there's profits to be made, then they "will".

I've gotta say, it's interesting watching "conservatives", still caught up in the false left/right paradigm, coming out of the woodwork to hypocritically argue against free market deregulation. Needlessly add Obama's name (Vilsack was already a stooge in Monsanto's pocket), and even free market deregulation becomes evil.

The crazy part is that this article completely ignores the, likely, more serious deregulation done by Vilsack at roughly the same time. Vilsack deregulated Monsanto's GMO corn strain designed specifically for ease in bio-fuel (ethanol) production. This strain of corn was NOT created for human/animal consumption at all, and now it can be freely planted without federal regulation.

For those who are unaware, unlike some other plants, corn is wind pollinated; so it's inevitable that this strain will cross-pollinate fields planted for human/animal consumption. I've seen a few naive posters brushing off the alfalfa and sugar beet deregulations under the false assumption that it won't come into contact with them. How many of those posters come into contact with corn? It's eaten on its own, and it's a major food component for the poultry, beef, and pork we consume every day.
edit on 6/3/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Can't somebody file a lawsuit against Obama then? He's going against a supreme court ruling.
How much does it cost to file a simple lawsuit to stir the pot and get the word out and make it a big stink so people know the prez just gave the supreme court the finger?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdog36
Can't somebody file a lawsuit against Obama then?


For what? Appointing a Monsanto stooge as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture? Certainly not a wise choice, but there's no law against it.


Originally posted by bigdog36
He's going against a supreme court ruling.


I hope by "he" you mean Tom Vilsack. You know... the Secretary of Agriculture who's actually responsible for the deregulation.

Curious about the the spin, attempting to blame Obama for Vilsack's actions, I decided to take a closer look at the author of the article.

Author: "by: Robbie Hanna Anderman, Tikkun"

Tikkun: "Tikkun Magazine | A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith movement"

It would appear that the author may simply have an axe to grind. Obama has been less than subservient with Israel lately, especially in calling for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders.

The fact of the matter is that Vilsack (former Governor of Iowa, an agricultural state that receives large subsidies in areas like bio-fuel corn/soy growth, and ethanol production) has a long history of being in bed with the biotech industry. Vilsack was already in Monsanto's pocket. Anderman's accusations of an alleged Obama "push" are completely unsubstantiated suppositions, and they're entirely unnecessary when it comes to a man like Vilsack who would need no "push" whatsoever. The deregulation was Vilsack's call, and Vilsack's action. I'm certainly no fan of Obama, and he made a terrible decision with his choice for the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, but I don't see how he can be sued, impeached, or "executed for treason" for something that Vilsack has done.
edit on 6/3/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


OP-The linked article makes several references to Obama "pushing fr deregulation' but doesn't appear to provide any evidence for the claim. Or perhaps I missed it. Where can it be shown that this was at POTUS' urging?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This makes me want to throw up. The crimes against humanity that Monsanto continues to perpetuate with government backing, no less, is appalling to anyone with half a brain. I recently read - and then reread - and triple checked (because I simply could not believe the absurdity of it) that Monsanto is sueing farmers that get their organic crops polluted with strains of GMO's. Yes, it's true. Farmers that plant organic crops and try to keep their harvest healthy and pure are being sued by Monsanto when the GMO's from nearby farms travels naturally by wind or honeybee or bird to their organic crops and pollutes the poor farmer's healthy vegetables. Absolutely Insane. This is the opposite of logic. Not only should it be the other way around, it is JUST PLAIN EVIL. Doesn't there come a point when money takes a back seat to common sense and decency? Apparently not anymore. Not until we are rioting in the streets. But if it happens, it will probably be over something stupid that TPTB orchestrate and plan in advance. I really miss the good old days. PEACE



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Don't you people read?

The Supreme Court REVERSED a lower courts injunction against the prohibiting the planting of the GMO alfalfa and slapped the lower court judges wrist in doing it.

USDA approved the GM alfalfa because it has completed the court ordered impact statement.

Obama appears to have nothing to do with any of it other than being President.

The whole article in the OP is BS apparently written by someone with an axe to grind. Someone who also happens to own an organic farm, go figure.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2

Obama appears to have nothing to do with any of it other than being President.



What?

Obama has everything to do with this, he appointed Monsanto's
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto lawyer, Vice President for Public policy (aka Chief Lobbyist) as The United States new
food "Czar".

Obama's buddy Vilsack,
and Taylor are all in bed with Monsanto.

The Obama dinner table is graced with organic food, and the rest of the world
gets the GMO poision.




edit on 4-6-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Right. And no one is denying that. But the article says SEVERAL TIMES that this happened at "Obama's urging" while never providing even an inkling of proof that this is the case. I would cry foul if it said at "Bush's urging" or "Elvis' urging". It's a sloppy bit of journalism.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Here it is for you in internet style black and white.


So what exactly prompted Vilsack to abandon his "coexistence" plan and pull the trigger on full deregulation? Some folks are saying that the pressure came from President Obama himself.

As Grist's Tom Philpott recently wrote, Wall Street Journal ag reporters, Bill Tomson and Scott Kilman, blamed Obama's review of "overly burdensome" business regulations for GE alfalfa's approval. The reporters wrote that "The Obama administration Thursday abandoned a proposal to restrict planting of genetically engineered alfalfa, the latest proposal shelved as part of the administration's review of 'burdensome' regulation." news.change.org...



[Size=3]The Obama administration Thursday abandoned a proposal to restrict planting of genetically engineered alfalfa, the latest rule-making proposal shelved as part of the administration's review of "burdensome" regulation.


Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's decision not to regulate alfalfa genetically modified to survive applications of the Monsanto Co. herbicide Roundup is a victory for the big seed and agri-chemicals company and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farmers, who had opposed the proposed curbs that were proposed about a month ago online.wsj.com...





edit on 4-6-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


And none of that provides any more evidence that this was, as the article says, 'at obama's urging'. Which is my only point. Just third-party rumor, at best.

Is Vilsach appointed by Obama? You bet he is. But the article makes several assertions that it doesnt substantiate.That is all I am contending. Your subsequent posts do nothing to provide any further substantiation.

You seem to perhaps think I am contending Vilsach didn't make this decision. I am not. I am pointing out sloppy journalism that likley distracts from the real issue.

edit on 4-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
And none of that provides any more evidence that this was, as the article says, 'at obama's urging'. Which is my only point. Just third-party rumor, at best.



Play games if you wish, I am sure no one is convinced by your obtuse observations.
Again, Obama directly is responsible. The Obama administration abandoned a proposal to restrict planting of genetically engineered alfalfa, the latest rule-making proposal was shelved as part of the administration's review of "burdensome" regulation.


Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's decision not to regulate alfalfa genetically modified to survive applications of the Monsanto Co. herbicide Roundup is a victory for the big seed and agri-chemicals company and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farmers, who had opposed the proposed curbs that were proposed about a month ago online.wsj.com...


The Wall Street Journal, a third person nobody.


edit on 4-6-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 





The Wall Street Journal, a third person nobody.


Why do you keep providing links and quotes that dont provide the evidence you claim they are providing? Are you unclear on what I am pointing out?



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join