Poison pill? Obama Can’t Fix Congress’ Monsanto Giveaway with an Executive Order

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

Obama Can’t Fix Congress’ Monsanto Giveaway with an Executive Order

By: Sarah Jones
Mar. 27th, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The “Monsanto Protection Act” (section 735) was attached (anonymously) as a rider to a short term spending bill (HR 933). President Obama signed it into law on March 26th.


Food activists (and generally sane people) are outraged, as they should be. 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the act and others called for Obama to strike the Monsanto provision (aka, “biotech rider”) from the spending bill.

“Passing the Monsanto Protection Act is the last straw for millions of Americans who are tired of being betrayed by their elected officials,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! “We’re calling on President Obama to stand up for family farmers and the Constitution and veto the Monsanto Protection Act.”

The problem is that the President does not have line item veto power; it’s all or nothing. This is called a poison pill. As part of the short term spending bill, President Obama had to sign the resolution in order to prevent the federal government from shutting down today, March 27, when the current funding was set to expire. He doesn’t get to cherry pick what parts he signs into law. He either lets the goverment shut down or he signs the poison pill.

The Monsanto Protection Act is outrageous to anyone who pays attention to our current food safety issues. It essentially temporary deregulates genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture the authority to override a judicial ruling stopping the planting of a genetically modified crop, and thus grants temporary permits for farmers to plant and grow genetically modified crops.

more...

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

[Duer 157099]

1. Let us forever associate the term "poison pill" with "Monsanto"

Very appropriate.

[Autumn]

2. I wonder if he could use a signing statement on that part.

If he could that would be great.

[KoKo]

3. Surely he can do a "Signing Statement" to Strike that part of the Bill?

Why Not? Bush did it... His handlers would go through Bills and language they didn't like would be "struck by his pen."

Yet there are people saying that Obama is Forced to Sign the Whole Bill because the Government would Shut Down.

Yet...Bush managed to do most anything...to get his RW Judges Through a Dem Congress and his Expanded War and whatever the Repugs wanted got Passed.

How is Obama so Weak ...when he just got RE-Elected?

[babylonsister]

6. I don't know if he can or can't.

Maybe that should be the next step it it's possible. Solutions would be good.

[tritsofme]

7. Not sure if you are being disingenuous here to be critical of the president

Or if you just have a poor understanding of the subject.

But this just isn't the sort of item that even Bush would have abused his signing statement power to block.

The president doesn't have a line-item veto, he could sign the bill or force a government shutdown.

[Autumn]

8. I did some looking up on signing statements. To me it looks like he could.

If he wanted to. Bush used it like a line item veto ( a lot) on things they didn't want .

[tritsofme]

14. No, he couldn't.

Even Bush did not abuse his signing statement power in the manner that is being proposed here. This is not an option that the administration entertained in any way.

[Autumn]

16. That's too bad, this would be a perfect time to use it against those asses who

stick something like this anonymously in an important bill .

[cheapdate]

24. True dat. nt

[ProSense]

13. That is not

"Surely he can do a 'Signing Statement' to Strike that part of the Bill?"

...what a signing statement does. It doesn't strike laws, it's a mechanism for interpretation, meaning that some ambiguity has to exists or a conflict over powers, that is Congress overstepping its authority. It's like the signing statement the President attached to NDAA.

Some members of Congress argued that the law authorized certain actions. The President assigned his interpretation.

[msanthrope]

17. Um, no. You are conflating a signing statement with a line-item veto. A sigining

statement is essentially a statement by the executive that carries no legal weight. A sigining statement that directs a federal agency to ignore a statute passed by Congress would violate Presentment.

The Line Item veto was declared unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York.

[Autumn]

21. Thank you. That's an excellent explanation and cleared that up for me.

Now I feel stupid for all my outrage those times Bush used them. I had no idea that they had no legal weight.

[ProSense]

23. That's

"Now I feel stupid for all my outrage those times Bush used them. I had no idea that they had no legal weight."

...all it took to let Bush off the hook? Bush was breaking the law. His signing statement on the IWR basically said he was going to ignore Congress.

[Autumn]

26. Yep, that's all it took Prosense, a clear simple explanation on signing statements.

I guess I better watch myself, next thing I know I will be supporting the use of drones, supporting the war in Afghanistan, tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations detentions and crappy stuff like that.




Fuck George Bush Edited to add ,may he fucking rot on a hook

[CitizenPatriot]

34. Bush misused the signing statement

that is very true. But it wasn't right.

[Autumn]

37. Reading how Bush used them is almost enough to make one wish Democrats weren't so

principled. Almost.

[babylonsister]

38. Thank you! Again! nt

[grantcart]

62. well they are conflating a lot more than that

Thanks for the clarification.


Obviously the President is going to sign the continuin resolution to keep the government operating.


If people don't understand why, at this point, another confrontation on top of the sequestering fight would be insanity then it really isn't worth the effort to try and explain it.

[hack89]

33. Executive orders cannot override legislation. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. Why do we believe he would want to?

It is possible he agreed with it?

[ProSense]

4. Here:

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

The anti-Obama outrage machine is churning.

[Logical]

59. So is the "Obama is perfect" machine! n-t

[ProSense]

69. Yeah,

"So is the "Obama is perfect" machine!"

...because the reality is that Obama, not members of Congress put this provision into the bill.

Come to think of it, your comment is a useless false equivalency so I've decided to veto it:

"So is the "Obama is perfect" machine!"

[freshwest]

5. I'm wondering if they put a fracking addendum in, too. Anything to screw us in a crisis.

They knew the bill had to be signed to keep the government going.

I'm wondering how many other poison pills we will see tacked onto bills between now and September. It's not time to give up, it's time to forge on and get rid of those who would have the entire government grind to a halt. This is dirty business here.

There were only a few who said Nay on the bill. They didn't do it because they hated Monsanto. They just wanted to shut the government down again.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. No. He doesn't even have the power to close Guantanamo. n/t

[rhett o rick]

10. With respect I dont think that is the correct usage of the term "poison pill".

It's usually used in finance, but in politics as I see it a poison pill is something placed in a bill or attached that poisons the bill and makes it not passable. For example, if there was a bill to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55 and it passed both Houses but had a section that made the Bush tax cuts permanent. That would be the poison pill that would make the bill something the president would not sign. The poison pill is aimed at killing the bill.

[Cha]

11. thanks babylonsistah thankfully this monsanto thing is

temporary too. As I said in another thread.. I'm glad the activists are working against frankenfood fascists but they need to know the rules of government or it messes with their credibility.

[condoleeza]

12. Would personally like to surround the bastards in Congress

who are responsible for this "rider" bullshit in a cloud of Round-Up.

[loudsue]

15. Can one of our good Senators (Sanders, Boxer, Franken, Warren)

write a bill that UN-DOES the part about monsanto that was slipped in there, so that it can get national attention on its own, and the assholes who helped push it through can be exposed?

Would Alan Grayson submit a bill to the house that would be similar?

We cannot let this part of the budget bill stand. It has to be called out for what it is, and for who supported it.

[sakabatou]

18. With a possible veto

[bvar22]

19. He didn't seem to think he would have a problem back in 2008.

He was clear:

Did he make a policy statement of opposition to this before signing?
Did he express a mild opinion?
I can't find one.

[babylonsister]

20. Thanks for this, bvar22, not that I didn't think

he was aware of it...

So. What should he have done? Stand on principle about a poison pill he might have known nothing about, veto, what?

So many issues...this is an important one.

[bvar22]

25. For one thing, he could have raised hell from the Bully Pulpit before signing,

or use all the might and influence of the White House and his position as leader of the Democratic Party to have it stripped out before it ever reached his desk.

I have had the good fortune to have lived through the administrations of many Presidents, Democratic & Republican.
The White House and Leader of a Party is NOT a weak and powerless position.

Despite Michele's Organic Garden, President Obama has a track record of being very supportive of Monsanto. Signing this bill is not an aberration.


I am unable to find a White House statement about the Monsanto provision in this bill.
I suspect President Obama, or more likely an official spokesperson, will be forced by popular outrage to make some statement in the near future,
or not.

[KoKo]

28. He's the President and he or his Aides on the Hill didn't know what

went on in the Dead of Night where they were pushing Bills and Amendments of Bills through until 4:45 a.m. Saturday Morning?

Why was this done on a Friday Night until 4:45 a.m. Saturday Morning and our President didn't know about it?

Are we expected to believe THIS? He knew everything...or he gave up and went to bed figuring out how to spin it over the weekend or the next week.

I find it shocking that there are posters here who think our President doesn't know what Congress is doing? He has aides for that and it's known to him what's going on every step of the way....or he "chooses" to be disengaged and blame everything on Repugs!

Which is it?

[ProSense]

44. Do you actually

"I find it shocking that there are posters here who think our President doesn't know what Congress is doing?"

...believe that the President is responsible for babysitting Congress? It's a separate branch of government. I mean, look how many people believe that members of Congress had no idea that the provision was in the bill:

"A provison that protects the biotech giant from litigation passed Congress without many members knowing about it"
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_act_snuck_into_law/

Clearly, that's not possible given the efforts to strip the provision from the bill.

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

[G_j]

67. reality check

thank you

[MoclipsHumptulips]

83. Really appreciate your posts here bvar22

Thank you.

[Marr]

22. Oh, I know-- he always "has to" do these things conglomerates want.

He always "has to", in order to save us all.

[cheapdate]

27. The new provisions alter, but do not eliminate

the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate GMOs as "plant pests" under the Plant Protection Act.

Under the old law (prior to the new provision of section 735, HR 933) the process was that a regulation stayed in effect while a petition to remove the plant from regulation was under consideration by the Secretary.

The change requires the Secretary to grant temporary deregulation while a petition to remove is being evaluated.

Sure, it's a win for Monsanto, but it's a very small victory and the fight ain't over.

Excoriating president Obama over this is asinine.

[KoKo]

29. You saw bvar22's post with Video from POB...up above?

If not...take a look.

[cheapdate]

30. Did not. Will look.

[cheapdate]

31. Saw video. President supports labeling. nt.

[KoKo]

35. He supported it then.....but this Monsanto GMO Seeds got into the bill

he signed. So, you think he will direct the Congress who sneaked that provision for Monsanto into the Bill in the "dead of night" will be expected to "order congress" to support labeling GMO's? Or will he request it...and what will the bill he signs with the GMO Monsanto Seeds approval have to do with anything down the road if it's law and who will undo it...and what can Obama do to force GMO Labeling of foods we eat...once the Monsanto Fed Cow is already out of the barn eating the fruits of the Monsanto seed approval until as some think the provision lapses (who knows when that will be)?

That's the problem.

[cheapdate]

46. Yes, congress passed and the president signed

the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 -- which included a provision that changed the way Secretary of Agriculture is required to respond to challenges regulations for "plant pests" under the Plant Protection Act.

The fight over GMO was neither won, nor lost with the passage of this bill.

There is plenty to dislike and single out in any comprehensive appropriations bill of this type. But excoriating the president over this, or any like, single, provision in any and all appropriations bills is not wise, as I see it.

I loathe Monsanto. I think they've essentially declared war on the living world. But I'm not abandoning the president because a single, small battle was lost.

[KoKo]

48. How is it not "wise" to confront our President about any

(quoting you) ".. comprehensive appropriations bill of this type."

How many other "bills of this type" are we supposed to cough down without bringing to our President's attention issues that we feel he should have found a way to deal with in a better fashion than he seems to be doing.

It's called "putting heat on those we voted for who are answerable to WE the People who voted them into office."

[cheapdate]

64. I didn't say it was wrong to speak out,

I said it was wrong to "excoriate" the president over this matter.

I understand the need to pressure public officials and elected leaders. It's vitally important.

But I think the idea that the president deserves the intense condemnation that some people have given him, because he did not veto this bill and send it back to congress over objections to section 735, which as I've said before is not the end of the battle over GMO, is neither justified nor rational.

Any bill that arrives at the president's desk must first be approved by John Boehner's and Eric Cantor's house. Our government is divided. The choices in a divided government are either compromise or stalemate.

Section 735 was a compromise. It's not a game changing provision. It alters, but does not eliminate, the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate GMOs as "plant pests".

[bvar22]

74. Don't hold your breath waiting on Tom Vilsack to "regulate" Monsanto.

"It alters, but does not eliminate, the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate GMOs..."

Lets see, who DID President Obama appoint to run the Department of Agriculture?
.
.
.
Well, that would be Tom Vilsack!
Former Gov of Iowa Tom "Mr Monsanto" Vilsack never met something from Monsanto he didn't like.

Iowa= GMO, Monocrop Big Corn & Big Monsanto.

Google: "Vilsack & Monsanto"

[cheapdate]

90. I know just enough about Tom Vilsack...

to know that I'd be infinitely more pleased to have someone else, almost anyone else, serving as Secretary of Agriculture. His appointment was no less disappointing for it's being completely predictable.

I was never fond of the senator from Illinois' (Barack Obama) support for corn-based ethanol. Our environmental ethics (the president's and mine) are significantly different, and in some ways incompatible.

Despite these differences and with full knowledge of their import and extent, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I voted for him over Hillary Clinton in the primaries because I felt (and still do) that he was slightly less conservative and probably less hawkish than Hillary.

Barack Obama is what he is. There is very little chance that he'll be embracing my environmental ethics anytime soon. He has very conventional and conservative views on land use and farm policy.

My views on land use and the environment would probably be considered radical by some people, but I think they're very sane and rational.

I loathe Monsanto for what they're doing. I think it's insane that more people aren't asking if encouraging agrichemical corporations to breed plants that can survive massive exposure to toxic chemicals is sensible public policy. Insane.

I accept that Barack Obama and I have different opinions on these matters. If I had the opportunity to discuss these questions with him, I would try to persuade him to see things my way.

What I'm saying is that if a person is just now learning that Barack Obama is in many ways very conventional in his thinking, then they haven't been paying much attention. It's really just some of the more the over-the-top recriminations against Obama for signing the approriations bill that I think are irrational.

[bvar22]

94. Do you really believe that we are "just now learning"...

... that Obama is a pro-business conservative,
and why should the length of time he HAS been conservative deflect genuinely deserved criticism of bad policy decisions?

Just because there has been a long line of betrayals of Campaign Promises and traditional Democratic Values doesn't mean that the most recent one should be any more acceptable. I'm glad you have found a path to acceptance of a Democrat directly violating campaign promises and promoting conservative policy.
I haven't.

Who is the judge of what qualifies as "over-the-top recriminations"?
You?
Please post some examples of these "over -the-top recriminations" so we at DU will know how to keep you happy. I will continue to hold his feet to the fire, as I was asked to do.

[cheapdate]

102. "Who is the judge...You?"

Is this a riddle? Of course I'm the judge of my own opinions. Who else would be?

And yes, I find people all the time, including here at DU, who convincingly seem to be shocked when Barack Obama behaves pragmatically or reveals the conventional, non-revolutionary aspect of his opinions and personality.

"Give up on this President, he's a shill and were (sic) being conned."
-xtraxritical

"Monsanto + Obama = Massive Dangerous screwjob for Americans"
- Berlum

It's fine to hold Barack Obama's feet to the fire. But know this also, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all voted for this bill. How about you get on their asses too?

[KT2000]

58. interesting take on this

after the fact is much harder to control than before the fact. Just look at EPA's record on banning hazardous chemicals that other countries have banned.
There will be a cost/benefits analysis done if a crop is found to be dangerous. This means the benefit and cost to Monsanto - not the public.

http://mobile.legalexaminer.com/miscellaneous/will-monsanto-protection-act-prevail.aspx?googleid=307722

[MrSlayer]

32. Yeah, there's this thing called a veto.

That he could have used but didn't. And you know, there are all these qualified people that he could have put in his cabinet that were not from the goddamn Monsanto corporation but he didn't.

Nice bullshit headline. Obama is in bed with these sons of bitches.

[cheapdate]

36. The fight over GMO was neither won, nor lost

with the passage of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 and the provision of Section 735.

If you're determined to paint the president as a scoundrel and an enemy over this one section of the 2013 appropriation bill, the by all means go for it.

There is plenty to dislike in any comprehensive appropriation bill. In this bill alone, there are sections I dislike far more than section 735.

But, the fight goes on. You're free to do as you choose, but I'll stay with the president.

[MrSlayer]

39. As is your choice.

By all means, keep the blinders on. He really is on our side.

[babylonsister]

40. Hey,

great name. Can I join you? hahaha!

[KoKo]

43. cheapdate....I think perhaps you are mischaracterizing what some

here are trying to say. No One has called POB a "scoundrel or an enemy."

We are pointing out that a President is informed and in this case perhaps he chose to look the other way....but, it left some of his constituents wondering about why this Monsanto Seed Give Away is in this bill and if it's in there...how does it ever get out? If it's signed into LAW...then there's precedent. Will be very hard to get it out.

[cheapdate]

50. Maybe so.

Maybe I've misspoken. I've seen some pretty strong recriminations against the president for signing the bill. The bill was a comprehensive appropriation measure. Of course there will be some provisions in it that we object to. This provision, section 735, is one of them.

But as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not like this either won or lost the fight over GMOs.

The provision changes the way the Secretary of Agriculture is required to respond to challenges to regulations for "plant pests" under the Plant Protection Act.

Removing the provision is as simple as writing to strike it in a future appropriations bill. Or even better, writing legislation that addresses GMOs directly, rather than relying on the vague and equivocal language of the Plant Protection Act.

Obviously, this would be more difficult with the house under Republican control. But the Senate could take the initiative. And of course the Democrats could take the House in 2014 or 2016.

My point is that excoriating the president for a single objectionable provision in a comprehensive appropriations bill is not realistic, as I see it. Expecting the president to go to the mat over this and shut down the government over it is not realistic.

[KoKo]

41. Well we are being told by some "informed sources" that he legally

could not veto what Congress did in the Dead of Friday Night until early hours on Saturday Morning...because the Government would SHUT DOWN! He HAD TO DO IT!

Like when Hank Paulson went down on "bended knee" (true story...just Google) and said the whole Banking Industry would shut down if the House didn't vote for a Bail Out of the Banks.

This is all out there in news reports and forgive me for ineloquently describing when our Congress was told of the Banking Crash that would bring America down to it's knees like Paulson demonstrated for Nancy Pelosi. And remember John McCain halted his Campaign to rush back to DC because there was such a CRISIS that our whole Country was in Peril.

So Obama had to do this our the Government would shut down...just like last year he had to sing a bad thing to keep our Government Going or it would ALL SHUT DOWN.

I know it's all the Republicans FAULT...even though we have a President just elected overwhelmingly for his SECOND TERM...but those mean ugly Repugs just won't give up. I wish our Dem Congress and Senate could have been as MEAN in 2006 under Bush...but then we are Compromisers...and kind and like to look at both sides of an issue....we just aren't MEAN! Not in our character.

[Le Taz Hot]

57. Straight and to the point.

[Doctor_J]

77. Which this president has used TWICE in 4 years

least in history, despite battling a right-wing anti-American Congress.

[BrotherIvan]

42. Fuck. This. Shit. nt

[tpsbmam]

45. I frankly question how much Obama

wants to fix the Monsanto giveaway.

I realize that Natural News is endlessly dissed on DU, but I think there's some merit to the contention of this article:

Meet Monsanto's number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

More at Natural News.

[lunasun]

55. +1

[Deep13]

47. He should have vetoed it.

Caving in makes him look weak, inviting further trickery.

[cstanleytech]

49. "The problem is that the President does not have line item veto power" No, thats not the problem.

If anything its vital in order that that a president doesnt sign only what they want and throw the rest of a bill under the bus.
The problem here is really that congress feels its ok to insert such poison pills into bills, the writing of bills needs to be done in a more honest way with plenty of time allowed for debate while limiting what can be inserted into bills at the last minute.

[reACTIONary]

51. FYI, Here is the actual text of the provision...

FYI, Here is the actual text of the provision, section 735 of the bill, found on page 78 of this PDF:

http://www.npr.org/documents/2013/mar/house_CR.pdf

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 per-
mit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to nec-
essary and appropriate conditions consistent with section
411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim
conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, con-
tinued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically
enumerated activities and requirements, including meas-
ures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse en-
vironmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s eval-
uation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensur-
ing that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cul-
tivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other author-
ized 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 anal-
yses or consultations related to the petition for non-regu-
lated 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.

[postulater]

76. I believe that is all one sentence.

No wonder no-one reads it. It is written in run-on sentences like a third grader would write.

All laws should be fit into a twitter box.

[reACTIONary]

87. Redaction Action

You are right! I went searching for a period, and there is just one, at the very end. They get half a point for introducing a couple colons, but not to any great effect.

My simplification:

In the event that non-regulated status is invalidated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall grant temporary permit(s) which authorize continued cultivation, ensuring that growers are able carry out authorized activities in a timely manner.

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.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

My interpretation:

If the Dept of Ag authorizes the cultivation of a (GMO) plant and then there is a lawsuit that requires the Dept to do further studies, the Dept will temporarily authorize the continued cultivation of the GMO while those studies are in progress.

[cheapdate]

91. I think your interpretation is spot on.

I've been trying to pin this down myself.

"...In the event that non-regulated status is invalidated"

What the assholes who wrote this intended, I think, is that IF the Secretary determines that GMOs are not to be regulated as "plant pests" AND that determination is challenged by a citizen's group, AND a court intervenes and issues some kind of injunction, then the Secretary must "immediately grant temporary permit(s)" -- which would have the effect of invalidating the previous court injunction.

I think you said it perfectly.

[reACTIONary]

98. I don't think it is GMOs in general...

...rather if a particular GMO is ruled OK, and then challenged, while the appeals and "further studies" required by the legal process are on-going, temporary permits are to be issued. In the part that I deleted there was verbiage that stated that the permits may be accompanied by restrictions and conditions to mitigate whatever concern is the cause of the litigation.

Of course, this would not affect GMOs that were ruled against in the first place.

[cheapdate]

100. It's confusing as f$#k.

If a court orders an injunction to allow evidence regarding the legality of non-regulation to be considered, then the Secretary MUST by law issue an interim permit, which would then be a separate matter and, presumably, not covered under the previous court injunction. It's not clear if the court could then issue a second injunction to allow evidence to be heard regarding the legality of the interim permit.

Fuck Monsanto.

[postulater]

92. Much better.

There's a future for you in a government job somewhere.

Maybe Secretary of the Department of De-Obfuscation of Horrendous Complexity and Gobbled DeGook in the Office of the Next-In-Line to LaTrine.

[reACTIONary]

99. Its a big job...

...but somebody has to do it!

[arcane1]

52. This is a perfect example of why they create these fake fiscal-crisis situations in the first place

"Disaster Capitalism" at its finest

[raouldukelives]

71. The corporations have us by the proverbial balls. The investors goal is to apply pressure. nt

[proverbialwisdom]

53. PETITION

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/

Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs!



We regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 933, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law. President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the urgent pleas of more than 250,000 Americans who asked that he use his executive authority to veto it. President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.

Today we’re calling on President Obama to issue an executive order to call for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Not only is GMO labeling a reasonable and common sense solution to the continued controversy that corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical have created by subverting our basic democratic rights, but it is a basic right that citizens in 62 other countries around the world already enjoy, including Europe, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

Join us in demanding mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Now's the time!

61,683 people like Food Democracy Now! You in?

[proverbialwisdom]

95. Let's See Action - Pete Townsend

65,342 people like Food Democracy Now!

[woo me with science]

54. So much pretending in this thread.

So much pretending that the President wanted to do anything other than what he did.

It's like living in Wonderland.

[lunasun]

56. like the playing cards painting white roses red

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. I was looking for that, thanks!

Really, all this Obama must have not meant to do what he did is unreal, pathetic too. I see this on a whole range of issues.

[Skittles]

79. have you noticed it is spreading, woo me?

seriously - more and more delusion

[woo me with science]

81. I actually don't think it's spreading.

It's the same familiar group pretending, as always. But I think many of those who are sick of the incessant propaganda and willful delusion are leaving. It's a shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259965

[Skittles]

82. I'll stick it out but.....

DU will improve greatly when the Groupies can no longer obsess

[woo me with science]

84. Unfortunately,

the site has chosen Party identification over liberal democratic principles. I don't see that happening.

It used to be that constantly posting in favor of right-wing policy was grounds for PPR/tombstoning here. Now you can advertise or act as apologist for predatory right-wing policy all day long, and as long as you claim to be a Democrat, you are just fine.

This is why, IMO, we still get the Hate Mailbag, but we no longer get Top Ten Conservative Idiots as features here. Top Ten Conservative Idiots was content-heavy and focused on the destructive policies of the Right Wing. You can't print something like that anymore, because virtually every predatory policy it used to lampoon and lambaste is now being carried forward and expanded by corporate Democrats. The cognitive dissonance alone would kill it as a feature.

Hate Mailbag is fine, because it's the visceral, largely content-free Two Minutes Hate. The vast majority of the cheerleading now is either fluffy, vapid bids for loyalty based on emotion, bids for visceral hate directed at Republicans, or arguing that a Republican would be worse. That, and trying to bully away those who speak the truth about what our party is actually *doing.*

This could be a vibrant site again if it went back to deciding membership based on support for liberal democratic principles again, rather than ceding principle to corporate party designation. People are desperate for places to talk openly and honestly about how to get this country off the suicide track the corporate oligarchs have put us on. Unfortunately, money talks, and you will not find many places online anymore that are not patrolled by corporate/political interests and turned into just another arm of our corporate media.

People leave out of disgust and helplessness. The entire country is feeling pretty helpless about now...

[Skittles]

85. sheesh, woo, you're kicking the hope clean out of me

it's bad enough I live in fucking TEXAS but I've always been proud to be a Democrat in Texas - seems like now I need to identify as LIBERAL to set myself apart of the new crop of so-called Democrats who simply go for ANYTHING as long as there is a (D) in there somewhere - the critical thinking part seems to be going down, down, DOWN

[cbrer]

101. ^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ Reply #84 nt

[BlueCaliDem]

61. A thread that even dares to come close to putting this president in a positive light

is guaranteed to attract the anti-Obamanites - the usual suspects. Makes you wonder why they're even here on DEMOCRATIC Underground and not at another anti-Obamanite site like FireBaggerLake or (Un)Common Dreams where the fringe Left pontificate endlessly about ALL Democrats - but nary a word about Republicans - the moment they so much as make the tiniest fart.

As expected, ZERO blame goes to Congressional Republicans and CorporateDems for manufacturing yet another crisis, forcing things to the last minute and the president to either buckle or hang in the wind. Some are even backwards enough to believe that there is such a thing as the presidential bully pulpit where he could've spoken from.

[Hekate]

63. I've referenced and linked the OP in two other threads...

... but been shot down both times. It's all Obama the Betrayer's fault y'know.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. I believe I've seen at least one of them

and you're right, it was shot down with visceral frothing at the lips anger. I don't recall this type of deep-seated, almost full-blown hatred here for President Clinton when he was president. I wonder why this is with this president. Hm. President Obama can't do a single thing right, and if he does something good, those same usual suspects are SILENT. But they expect us to believe they voted for him. Yeah, right.

To be sure, at HuffPo, I get LESS fury and frothing at the mouth gall spewing by the fringe Left and fringe Rightwing than I do here. Another head-scratcher.

[cstanleytech]

80. Oh I agree with you there. In fact when I point out facts like

for example that Obama was stopped from closing Gitmo due to congress I get called things like bootlicker and an "enabler".
I mean really, is it to much to ask that people read the constitution and learn that our government is not setup with the president being able to just issue royal decrees?

[Enrique]

70. it would be more honest to defend the legislation itself

rather than call it outrageous and at the same time imagine that Obama shares that opinion, without any basis in fact.

Sometimes Obama pays lip service to liberals' concerns, and the question is how sincere he is. In this case, there doesn't appear to even be any lip service and we're still being told that Obama is against the bill.

[SidDithers]

72. DU rec...

'cause so many DUers just don't seem to get it.



Sid

[Enrique]

73. .

[SidDithers]

75. Speaking of..nt

Sid

[babylonsister]

78. Blame the gop...

[bvar22]

86. Why can't the Democrats ever "slip things into bills"...

... like Public Options and Jobs Programs.
The Law of Averages dictates that we should come out ahead every now and then,
but we NEVER do.
It is always a continual, never ending slip/slide to the Conservative/Corporate Right even when we hold Majorities & The White House,
accompanied by the same tired excuses.

"There was nothing we could dooooooooo."
"It was ALL somebody else's fault."

Are the Republicans THAT much smarter and better Chess Players than the Democrats & President Obama?
Was there NOBODY watching?

If they will sign me up on the Congressional Health Care and Pension Plan,
I'll sit there every fucking night and watch those bastards.

[woo me with science]

88. Isn't it funny how that works.

[trueblue2007]

89. KICK UP TO THE TOP. this is important

[Safetykitten]

93. It's Obama's DOMA.

[Skip Intro]

97. Nothing but excuses on this issue.