Dear Obama Voter

You are a sucker of the first order.

Join the March Against Monsanto on 5/25/13: https://www.facebook.com/events/147274678766425/155451594615400</p><p>"We regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 993, 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."</p><p>Read More: http://theanti-media.org/2013/03/27/obama-signs-monsanto-protection-act/

Remember when you were all up in arms, simulating outrage about Bush shredding the law?  Next time, try real dudgeon and not just politically convenient fake dudgeon.  Meanwhile: own this, sucker.

  • http://www.thecatholicbeat.com Gail Finke

    Mark, Mark, your mild reproofs are a model of how a soft answer turneth away wrath.

  • Glenn

    I’d like to know which Congress Critter(s) was (were) responsible for placing it in the bill. Anyone had time to research that?

  • Darren

    Two time Ross Perot voter here, thank you very much, and a supporter of John McCain in the 2000 _primaries_.

    In 2008 I did not vote for Barack Obama, I voted against Sara Palin… ;)

    • DTMcCameron

      Got the Kodos bumper sticker, eh?

      • Darren

        Hah! Great episode; the part with Ross Perot punching through his own hat always gets me…

  • John

    So…this is snuck into an overall appropriations bill. Shocking! You know Mark, it takes two to tango in situations like these. Someone put it in the bill, and it was probably part of some negotiation. Who knows what was offered up, or received in return? But, save the faux outrage over something said on the campaign trail, to try to prove your ongoing point of Obama being “evil”. Find me a president, any president, who has had to negotiate something against what they said. It’s just not real.

    With that said, I don’t like Monsanto, and the way we have turned the growing of food in this country into a chemically, genetically modified, filled harvest. This has gone on for 40+ years…making our population bigger in size, and waistline… and ultimately unhealthier. Cheap food is unhealthy food. Too bad the crazies on the far, far right won’t be believed when they use this as their latest attack on the President…since there is nothing they don’t hammer at him on.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Creating more food, better growing food, and even genetically-modified food, is not, per se, wrong. Online activists like to paint Monsanto as evil because “GMOs are eeeevil.” GMOs are the reason why The Population Bomb is a myth. It is the way we can feed everyone.

      There are plenty of other reasons why Monsanto is evil, like their sterilization of seeds, even those “donated” to the poor in Haiti, making the poor even more dependent on them than ever.

      • Dustin

        I wasn’t aware that terminator seeds were even legal yet. Monsanto usually obliges farmers who purchase their seeds “not to save or sell” them. Has this changed?

      • Beccolina

        A big issue is that the seeds require repeated applications of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers to be successful. Farmers, especially farmers in poorer countries than this one, go into debt to buy the seeds and all the chemicals that are supposed to guarantee a great crop. It’s supposed to take the risk out of farming. Unfortunately, GMO crops can fail because even they depend on weather patterns. When they do, the farmers are left with no legal seed corn, huge debt, and no hope of ever getting out–remember the line in 16 Tons? “I owe my soul to the company store.” Same idea, larger scale. GMO crops also cross pollinate with non-GMO crops. I don’t know if the genetic modifications are inherently dangerous, but I like my food without the chemicals, and I’d like to see some concern for the soil quality and sustainability of our food supply, as well as concern for the nutrient content of our food, which has gone down over the last 100-150 years.

    • http://day2daycatholic.blogspot.com Sylvia

      Right, I’m sure appointing former vp of Monsanto as head of the FDA had nothing to do with it. Obama was just being pragmatic right?

    • Mark Shea

      I’ve already written about the Right’s Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. But, back to you: own this, sucker.

      • John

        I own nothing, and at the same time I expect nothing. I wish Obama was as incredibly powerful as folks on both sides make him out to be. He is not. Just a man. And, that’s politics. I don’t have to like it, but, making deals is the way things get done in this country.

  • http://www.cappadociainlowell.blogspot.com Renee

    If Obama rejected the bill on the basis of the Monsanto deal, it would only be a positive for the President. The issue of GMO is a concern cross party lines. Now all of my progressive friends are defending his actions.

    “Progressive liberalism is as dead as social conservatism.” Of course progressives became defensive, but many of their ideal I and many social conservatives would actually agree with are lost. For instance the use of Drone by the military, or here in Massachusetts where social conservatives and liberal progressives came together to fight against commercial casino gambling and lost to our state.

    • The Deuce

      At its core, progressive liberalism is, and always has been, about the acquisition of total power by the self-appointed “enlightened” elite to remake society according to their whims, nothing less and nothing more. The various causes progressives get behind are really just means to realize totalitarianism, while putting a smiley face on it and presenting it as something less sinister. Hence, there’s really no contradiction in their minds when they perform a rapid 180 on GMO labeling or opposition to assassination without due process (or forced lobotomies and race-based eugenic sterilizations, etc). They were never really “for” those things in the first place. They were just the most convenient auspices under which to sell tyranny by left-wing elites at the time, but now they’ve become obstacles to their appointed tyrant-du-jour, so they’ve dropped their old rationalizations and switched to different ones.

  • A Random Friar

    Why would you make someone immune to the law? That is a head scratcher.

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Jack Regan

    I’m not an American voter, but it seems to me that Obama is a classic example of how spin, hype, image, speech-writing etc etc can sell something poor as being amazing. Shame on those speech-writers and spin-doctors (to use a UK phrase) and shame on the voters for not looking a little deeper!

  • Dale

    As others have pointed out, the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” is actually one section of a gigantic spending bill which Congress and the President needed to pass quickly. Basically the bill helped ease the mess created by the fiscal cliff. As for the section dealing with GMO crops, who inserted the section seems to be unknown.

    However, the section has nothing to do with the labeling of foods, so the meme which appears at the top of this article is highly misleading. The section dealing with GMO crops allows the Secretary of Agriculture to temporarily authorize the planting of GMO crops which have not met regulatory approval.
    http://www.foodnewsie.com/articles/hr-933-section-735-monsanto-rider

    Even referring to that section as “The Monsanto Protection Act” is misleading since it doesn’t protect Monsanto. It does, however, benefit the producers of GMO seed, and that would include Monsanto.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.alexanderson Alexander S Anderson

      This piece of legislation gives more sweeping powers to Tom Vilsack? Oh, dear Lord, help us…

  • Benjamin

    Um, Mark, opposing birth control AND opposing GMO is a little much. If you want that many people in the world, it’s either GMO or mass starvation. Just saying.

    • Beccolina

      Don’t worry. If we keep letting people eat a nutrient depleted, industrially produced diet, infertility will take care of the population problem. Then the mineral-depleted soil will be unable to sustain crops or livestock. The just-enough-of-me-way-too-much-of-you crowd will have their wishes fullfilled.

    • Mark Shea

      I don’t worry much about GMO per se. I do worry that an evilcorp like Monsanto owns and runs the US govt and immunizes itself from legal constraints. We’ve been practicing GMO since we first figured out how to breed dogs out of wolves.

      • Beccolina

        No, we haven’t. Breeding animals or plants that can naturally breed with one another is selective breeding. GMO’s happen when genes from completely different organisms, which could never breed, are introduced. When Monsanto created GMO potatoes, for example, it used a gene from a soil bacteria and inserted it into the potato genome to create a potato immune to the Colorado potato beetle. The soil bacteria contained a substance deadly to the beetle, and that is what they inserted into the potato. The main objections to GMO’s is that there is little research on how eating them could affect human health and they are not labelled, so people who would like to avoid them cannot. They also support the monoculture idea of farming, which damages the health of the soil.

  • Kirt Higdon

    I don’t see what is intrinsically wrong with genetic modification of plants and animals. Human beings have been doing this virtually since the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry. The only difference now is that it is being done on the micro and not just the macro level. Properly done it amounts to good stewardship of God’s creation and is a benefit especially to the poor and those with food shortages. Of course, it can be done selfishly or ineptly, but that’s true of any human activity.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Exactly. The argument against Monsanto has been co-opted by the Trendy Organic Crowd, which doesn’t really point out the true immorality of Monsanto.

    • kenneth

      Nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but the genetic modification being done now is qualitatively different from traditional hybridizing, and I don’t think it’s being done with the proper appreciation for that fact, or for the potential problems of the technology. Much or all of it might be all to the good, but we don’t really understand the large-scale, long term risks of putting a bacteria toxin gene in corn to produce its own pesticide, and the companies doing this aren’t terribly interested in finding out.

      Big agribusiness, like big pharma or big oil or any other corporate entities, don’t have great track records when it comes to accountability and disclosure. They try not to look for profit-killing problems or to bury the evidence, grease the thing by regulators, and leave the public to clean up the mess.

      If what they were doing was really on the up and up, why is it that they always feel the need to buy off lawmakers and regulators to make sure everything is done with no disclosure, no rigorous review and absolute protection from ordinary product liability?

      • Jon W

        Excellent. Kenneth hits it on the nose.

  • Me

    Isn’t your chastising Obamists sort of like atheists bullying creationists?

    • Mark Shea

      No. Next question?

  • kenneth

    Maybe we ought to drop all pretense of voter accountability and just openly license the White House and Congress to whatever corporate sponsor makes the highest bid. They could put their logos on the building and everything. We could plant Monsanto crops everywhere and water them with Brawndo!

    • Jon W

      It’s got electrolytes plants crave! (Best. Movie. Ever.)

  • Chris M

    It’s sort of interesting how Obama can delegate himself all sorts of expansive executive powers but when he does something like this, his fawning admirers (who can’t admit that he really is NOT black Jesus) have to excuse it somehow by saying “Oh, it was the evil GOP in congress that passed it.. he had no choice but to sign it! Poor, poor, Mr President.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X