Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

By: Anthony Gucciardi

It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection  Acthidden in the recently  passed and signedContinuing Resolution spending bill. How could a  major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate  passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually  gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others  than Roy Blunt — a Republican  Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB  Times article reveals, the Missouri politicianworked with Monsanto  to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York  news report I will get to shortly.

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left versus  right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to  colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literallybeen  caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable  to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

This is one of the most blatant offenses against the citizens of the United  States I’ve seen in a long time. A population that Blunt swore to serve. It’s  not for the United States public at all, and it’s a serious matter that I don’t  think is properly understood. The passing of this bill into law means thatMonsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any  suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the  people (or the environment).

This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment  or the public will be immune from United States government action.  Theoretically, one million studies could find that Monsanto’s latest creation  was causing a massive cancer wave and under this law Monsanto could continue to  peddle the crop to the public. The federal courts would (or will) be helpless to  stop Monsanto, effectively giving Monsanto power over the entire branch of the  United States government. Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that  organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the  rider:

“The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting  of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any  new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human  health or the environment.”

Sounds like a great idea, right?

Serving Corporations, Not People

Senator Roy Blunt and those who knowingly passed the Monsanto Protection Act  (including President Obama who signed it into law just last night) have chosen  to serve corporations over people. Ironic, really, as corporations legally are  people — a legal area commonly used to avoid real jail sentences for major CEOs  and executives who knowingly were involved with the deaths of consumers around  the world.

It’s sad, really. I read up on Senator Blunt, and he does seem to constantly  side with corporations over the public. Even on his Wikipedia  page one line reads that Blunt ”consistently sided with Big Oil and  other dirty polluters over a cleaner, more sustainable future.”I was even able  to find a quote by Blunt defending his decision to allow Monsanto to write its  own regulation through the Monsanto Protection Act. He told the NY Daily News in  defense of the Monsanto Protection Act and his relationship with the company in  writing the rider:

“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant  it, you get to harvest it.”

I think Blunt is confused over which ‘people’ he is serving. I created  this image to call Blunt out on his open decision to side with Monsanto over the  public:

You can contact Senator Blunt through his website  and let him know what you think about his decision to let Monsanto write its own  Protection Act. No longer can we sit idly by while corporate juggernauts like  Monsanto triumph over the people through swindling and deceit.Share  this article, the image, and publicly denounce all politicians willing to sell  their souls to Monsanto.

No Monsanto for Obama, ওবামার বাগানে মনসান্তো নিষিদ্ধ

এত্ত ভাল ওবামার ছবি এবং মন্তব্য আমি অনেক দিন দেখি নি

মন্তব্য কি দরকার?

সিরিয়ায় আক্রমণ বিষয়ে আমেরিকার রাষ্ট্রপ্রধান বারাক ওবামাকে রুশ রাষ্ট্রপ্রধান ভ্লাদিমির পুতিনের চিঠি, What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

সিরিয়ায় আমেরিকার প্রায়-আক্রমনের বিষয়ে রুশ রাষ্ট্রপ্রধান ভ্লাদিমির পুতিন, আমেরিকার রাষ্ট্রপ্রধান বারাক ওবামাকে একটি জবাবি চিঠি লিখেছেন। সেটি এখানে তুলে দেওয়া গেল। একটু নজর দেবেন। 

একই সঙ্গে মনে রাখা দরকার একদা ভারত সবথেকে বেশী অস্ত্র কিনত প্রাক্তন ইউএসএসআর থেকে। এবং এখন আমেরিকার পর ভারতের সব থেকে বড় পরামানু শক্তির বন্ধু হবে কিন্তু রাশিয়া।

তবুও আজকের এই বিশ্ব রাজনৈতিক উত্তেজনার প্রেক্ষাপটে এটি খুবই গুরুত্বপুর্ন বিষয় এবং বক্তব্য। ওপরের বিষয়গুলিতে মতানৈক্য করেও সিরিয়া বিষয়ে আমরা পুতিনের পক্ষে।

এই প্রেক্ষিতে একদা পঞ্চশীলের উদ্গাতা, আজ বড় ভআই আমেরিকার সঙ্গে যুদ্ধে যেতে প্রায়-উন্মুখ ভারত রাষ্ট্রের কর্নধারেরা কি ভাবছেন জানতে পারলে স্বস্তি বোধ করতাম।

বাংলার গ্রাম-শিল্পীদের পক্ষে বিশ্বেন্দু, মধুমঙ্গল

Thought would be of interest to you......

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.