Palestine to seek UN Membership again...

The Wall and Israeli watch tower in Idyah Camp Bethlehem Photo by: Susan Brannon

Note by: Susan Brannon
article by: Khaled Amayreh from Occupied Jerusalem 

Note:  Palestine has no place to turn too outside of recognition from the UN as its own state.  Israel wants to keep Palestine under its thumbs and continue to confiscate Palestinian land within the 1967 borders and reap a profit by selling Israeli goods within the territories.  Israel wants to continue to show America the risk and continual treats that Palestine and its people have to offer in order to recieve continual funding for "security". Notwithstanding the constant building of settlements and roads that wind and divide the territories and its people.  An Israeli/America feels that Obama "has taken concrete steps to make Israel more secure —"..."As president, he responded by providing full financing and technical assistance for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range anti-rocket defense system, which is now protecting those villagers. In July, he provided an additional $70 million to extend the Iron Dome system across southern Israel. That’s in addition to the $3 billion in annual military assistance to Israel that the president requests and that Congress routinely approves, assistance for which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed deep personal appreciation."  

Not only does Palestine have to stand up against Israel the occupier and America the funder and maybe I am putting myself out on a limb here, but what about the Arab States?  This is another complicated issue for Palestine, on one hand the Islam Brotherhood holds the Palestinians in honor for their struggle but are they being used as a political tool?  The other Arab countries hold Palestine in their hearts, but want to remain in peace with the Western world and will not go out on a limb to help Palestine and their rights.  In truth, Palestine has a lot to stand up against in terms of country recognition.  

Palestine to Seek UN Membership

Trying desperately to salvage the Palestinian national dream of establishing a viable Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is planning to formally ask the United Nations to recognise "Palestine" as a member-state of the international organisation.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the highest political representative of the Palestinian people, has observer status at the UN.

A formal application will be submitted to the UN General Assembly on 27 September. The PA says as many as 133 states recognise Palestine, hence a decision at the UN in favour of the Palestinian bid is likely, save last-minute glitches.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the PA was serious about seeking UN membership despite Israeli threats and American objections.

During a lengthy speech in Ramallah Sunday, Abbas voiced mounting frustration at Israeli intransigence and dishonesty vis-?-vis the peace process. "There are many pressures and hurdles, but we will go the United Nations," he said.

Abbas said the ongoing political deadlock was leaving the Palestinians no other choice. "We are only asking the Israelis to honour their own commitments, but they refuse."

Abbas gave a pessimistic prognosis of the declared stands of the Binyamin Netanyahu government, saying Israel was viewing the occupied territories not as "occupied" but as "disputed land". He added that Israel was demanding a military presence along the Jordan Valley for at least 40 years. He said the Palestinians would never accept these demands.

"We have two choices, either we go, or we don't go. If we don't go, the entire Palestinian cause will fall into oblivion," Abbas said.

Last week, Israel warned the PA against applying for UN membership. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Israel would retaliate against the step. Lieberman previously accused the Abbas leadership of "indulging in political and diplomatic terrorism against Israel".

Abbas alluded that Israel might eliminate him, as it eliminated other Palestinian leaders, a possible allusion to the mysterious death of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

"But there is one thing I want you to be sure of: We are staying put here. We will not leave, and we will not make the mistake of 1948 once again.

Arab states, including Egypt, are backing the PA bid to obtain UN membership. In the past, the United States used the Mubarak regime to restrain and bully the PA against making moves without Israeli and US consent.

In September 2011, the PA made a high-profile effort to obtain full member status at the UN. However, the request was not put to a vote in the Security Council where the US pledged to veto it.

On Monday, 11 September, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the Obama administration still believed that the only "realistic path" for Palestinian statehood was through direct negotiations.

Nuland said the US was trying to dissuade PA President Abbas from seeking full member status at the UN. "We are working intensively through the Quartet and directly with Israelis and Palestinians to continue to encourage them to come back to the table. All we can do is push them. We cannot force them. They have got to make the decision for peace. They've got to make the decision to come back to the table," Nuland said.

Palestinians, who have been negotiating with Israel for nearly two decades but without making any real progress toward liberation from the entrenched Israeli occupation, are in no mood to listen to regurgitated remarks and platitudes repeated on the benefits of direct negotiations.

"How can we keep negotiating with Israel while Israel keeps stealing and carving out our land? It is unfair for the United States, Israel's guardian ally, to tell the criminal and the victim to sort it out amongst them. Yet, this is what the US is telling us in real terms," said Ghassan Khatib, former head of the government press office.

Khatib said the American stand of telling the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel without clearly determining the shape of a would-be settlement, including the exact borders of the prospective Palestinian state, was tantamount to pressuring the Palestinians to capitulate to Israeli demands.

"Remember, it is the US that provides Israel with the tools and wherewithal that enables Israel to adopt a rejectionist stand," he said.

The Obama administration has been trying to appease Israel as part of a public relations showdown with Republican candidate Mitt Romney ahead of November's US presidential elections.

Romney has been accusing the administration of not sufficiently backing Israel despite Obama's repeated pronouncements asserting absolute and almost unlimited support for Tel Aviv, including commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge over actual and potential foes combined.

Israel, which has been squeezing and blackmailing the Obama administration for more concessions on Iran, has succeeded in getting Washington to demote the Palestinian issue to secondary status.

The PA had received vague promises from the Obama administration suggesting that President Obama would devote more time and energy to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict if elected to a second term in the White House.

Most Palestinians dismiss such promises for two reasons: first, overwhelming Jewish influence in the US Congress, often described as "an Israeli occupied territory"; second, the conviction of many observers that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unresolvable based on the two-state solution strategy, in light of the phenomenal expansion of Jewish colonies in the West Bank, especially East Jerusalem.

For Related Articles (and much older ones) enter the word Palestine in the search this blog field on the right.

Palestinians Revolt against the PA

Image from Reuters

19 September 2012
Khaled Amayreh writes from Hebron As the economic crisis in the Occupied Territories deepens, Palestinians are looking to their leadership for someone to blame.

 (Note: Susan Brannon has not forgotten Palestine and continues to follow the news, I thought that this was interesting and this news is not posted in most places internationally. This reminds us of the continual struggle in the Palestinian region and their fight for survival.) The Palestinian Authority (PA) is facing the severest political and economic crisis since its establishment following the Oslo Accords in 1993 as tens of thousands of Palestinians have been taking to the streets, protesting the high costs of living and demanding the downfall of the Ramallah regime. In Hebron, the largest district in the West Bank, as many as 40,000 protesters demonstrated Monday against the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad along with PA President Mahmoud Abbas. "Fayyad: leave, leave, leave. The people wants you no more!" and "The people want to topple the president!" were chanted recurrently. Some protesters hurled stones at the municipal building, smashing glass. Others attacked a police station on the main Ein Sara Street, prompting the police to fire tear gas at the crowd. No serious injuries were reported. Police Chief Ramadan Awadh called the protesters "renegades and infiltrators". "For God's sake. Who benefits from these acts of sabotage and vandalism?" he asked. Ramadan, like other PA officials, said the masses had a right to demonstrate and protest the economic crisis. However, he warned that Palestinian security forces would use an iron fist approach against those who resorted to violence. In Nablus, in the northern West Bank, violent protests took place in the city centre, also on Monday, evolving into a confrontation with the police. Gunfire was not used, but as many as 20 people suffered light to moderate injuries from stones hurled by both protesters and the police. In several other localities, an "Intifada-like atmosphere" was discernible as local youths burned tires, blocked streets and hurled stones at passing cars. Sporadic strikes were also observed, including one by the drivers of yellow taxi cars, protesting phenomenally high fuel prices, which observers contend may be among the world's highest. Protesters, who are not affiliated with a single political faction, are vowing to keep up the pressure until their demands are met. Their demands include the sacking of the Fayyad government and the annulment of the 1994 Paris Economic Protocol, which critics say put the entire Palestinian economy at Israel's mercy. Protesters also demand an "immediate answer" to their crippling financial problems. They complain that no matter how hard they try to "tighten their belts" to make ends meet, they fail to make a decent living due to unprecedented high prices, rampant inflation, high costs of living, and the dwindling real value of their originally meagre salaries. Most Palestinian civil servants receive monthly salaries ranging from 2500-3000 Israeli Shekels, or roughly $650-750. The sum might look perfectly acceptable for citizens of many Third World -- including Arab -- countries. However, when set against obscenely high consumer goods and services prices in the occupied territories, the real scope of the crisis becomes apparent. For example, the price of a 13-kilogramme Butane cooking gas cylinder is nearly $20 while the price of a litre of unleaded gasoline surpasses the $2 limit. The prices of food commodities have also skyrocketed in recent months, with a kilo of lamb reaching $19, and a kilo of ground beef passing $15. This in addition to phenomenally high prices of water, electricity and especially college education, with numerous Palestinian families forced to choose between putting food on the table and sending their children to university. The PA hopes that the current crises will prompt donor countries to come to the rescue. Fayyad has called repeatedly for help, rightly blaming the economic and financial problems of Palestinians on the continuance of the Israeli occupation. "We sometimes tend to forget that our Palestinian Authority is under Israeli occupation. Some people think that we are free to do what we want. They should know that Israel controls everything," he said. However, Fayyad's explanations have failed to sufficiently satisfy an increasingly restive Palestinian public, let alone sceptics who had never been comfortable with his "Western policies". In his numerous interviews, Fayyad said he would resign if his resignation would help solve the problem. He scoffed at those demanding the cancellation or renegotiation of the Paris Economic Protocol, arguing that the protocol served Palestinian interests. With public distrust of his policies mounting, Fayyad still retains two bargaining chips: first, he can argue he is but a technocrat carrying out the policies and instructions of the PA and that he never initiated policies or took measures against the wishes of the political leadership, namely President Abbas. In his speech in Ramallah earlier this week, Abbas reasserted his support and backing of Fayyad, saying that the premier was an integral part of the PA and was implementing its policies. The second and probably more significant bargaining card lies in the fact that Fayyad is backed by donor countries upon whose handouts the very survival of the PA depends. It is widely believed that donor countries view the continued presence of Fayyad at the helm of government in Ramallah is a guarantee against mushrooming corruption within the PA. Indeed, a rash decision by Abbas to fire Fayyad could have serious ramifications in terms of continued American and EU aid to the Ramallah regime. Abbas is not in a position to challenge, or even seriously oppose, the dictates and instructions of donor countries. Hence, any decision to sack Fayyad wouldn't be easily taken, to say the least. In his Ramallah speech, Abbas blamed Arab states and the international community for letting the stalled peace process "reach this point". He angrily blamed Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, without naming him, for saying that Egypt was "standing at the same distance from Hamas and Fatah". Some of Abbas's harshest words were reserved for Hamas, barely stopping short of blaming all PA ills and troubles on the Islamist movement. He said Hamas had two choices: either allow elections to take place under current circumstances, or forget about reconciliation with Fatah. Hamas is worried that the PA and Israel would falsify any elections and is demanding guarantees that would ensure transparency. Drawing a bleak picture of the political situation and Israeli intransigence, Abbas said he might resort to making decisions that never normally come to mind. Some observers suggest that Abbas might be alluding to the possibility of dissolving the PA regime. However, Abbas has in the past made numerous threats to resign and dismantle the PA, none of which came to anything. Abbas flew to India on a scheduled visit, protests spread all over the West Bank, with protesters demanding "tangible answers" not "jokes". Abbas's speech was pitted with light moments that many Palestinians interpreted as failure on the part of Abbas to appreciate the severity and gravity of the current crisis. Khalid Amayreh Occupied Palestine

Are you going to vote for this man?

Susan Brannon
18 September 2012


Normally, I try to stay away from the current election in America, but this recent video leak makes the cake.  We all know who Mitt Romney is but who is Mitt Romney when the camera's are not rolling for public view?

This video shows the real personality of the man who feels that he is qualified to run for the President of the United States and represent the American people and to take a stand for the American people, or shall I say a few American people. This is a man running for the highest office to solve all of the American economic woes and a man that will set things right in order to save our failing country.  This is a man who is asking for your vote and support so he can set things right in America.

In this video Mitt Romney speaks like a true businessman and corporate leader at a Boca Raton fundraiser on May 17, 2012.  He clearly trashes 47 percent of the American people, "who pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn't connect…who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.  That that's an entitlement…they will vote for this president no matter what.  I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.  What I have to is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

Is the 47% Romney talking about the Iraqi war veteran, those who retired on Social Security or Medicare or the students who live on a student loan to go to college?  It seems that Romney does not know much about the American people.  This video reveals Romney's arrogant and sinister character and that character has taken the center of his party. Would you want this sinister personality represented to the rest of the world? Do you really think that he will help eradicate poverty in America…that 46.2 million people without work who really want to work?  His past actions clearly tell us that Romney does not care about America, its people, or anything else civil for that matter.

Romany does not mention that his ex company "The Baim Corporation" is under tax investigation. The NY Times  reported, "The tax strategy — which is viewed as perfectly legal by some tax experts, aggressive by others and potentially illegal by some — came to light last month when hundreds of pages of Bain’s internal financial documents were made available online. The financial statements show that at least $1 billion in accumulated fees that otherwise would have been taxed as ordinary income for Bain executives had been converted into investments producing capital gains, which are subject to a federal tax of 15 percent, versus a top rate of 35 percent for ordinary income. That means the Bain partners saved more than $200 million in federal income taxes and more than $20 million in Medicare taxes."  Avoiding 20 million in Medicare taxes is taking away from those who have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system which is now going broke…all because of the arrogant and shellfish attitudes of our corporate leaders. Thank you Romney.

Romney continues to receive profits from the company and held investments in some of the funds that utilized the tax avoidance strategy.  Some folks will arrogantly respond that "This is America, tax avoidance is not illegal and the companies exist to make a profit….everything else is not our responsibility"

Who are Romney's friends?  Marc Leder is ne friend is who hosted the fundraiser he is the CEO of a private equity firm called Sun Capital.  They have the reputation for bankrupting companies for profit.  Sun Capital owns 25 companies and one in every five has filed for bankruptcy.  Sun Capital was also accused by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation of intentionally pushing a company into bankruptcy in order to avoid paying workers' pension, only a few months ago.  Folks, these people are Romney's friends.  Unfortunately, many millionaires feel comfortable with this sort of action.

America the beautiful is a place where corporations can run and save millions if not billions of dollars by offshoring, tax evading, and manipulating their funds to reduce taxes owed to our country if paying anything at all.  America, a place where it is possible to steal from the country and the people and can run for president all at the same time, with voters behind them. Do not forget that our Constitution clearly states, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Romney states that housing, food and you name it is an entitlement, eluding that it is not a "right" in America. Our nation was founded for the rights of the people including, "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The attitude of the republicans is denial, towards poverty and those who cannot help themselves is "their problem" by denying the reality that this is a direct result of corporate corruption, wall street and bank manipulations, off shoring, layoff's of the close to pension elderly, reducing full to part time without health or medical benefits.  Remember folks, a secure livelihood, a place to live in a safe and secure environment, medical attention, and food is not a "right" to Mitt Romney.  What will be next, will we not have the "right" to education?

Who are not paying taxes?  ABC reports that those making $75,000-$100,000 a year are the fastest growing share who don't pay federal income taxes.  In fact, I know of a woman who reported $12,000 in income last year and had to pay $450.00 in income taxes.  She paid.  However, of more than 20,000 filers that made more than $200,000 a year with 1,470 had an adjusted gross income of more than $1 million - owed no income tax.

In the end, the 47% number is not true.  Yes, 46% of tax fillers will owe no federal income tax, but things like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment…80% of tax filers pay some kind of federal tax.  If you are married and make less than $18,700 you did not have to pay income taxes, if you are older than 65 and the income was $20,000 or less you did not have to pay taxes. Filers with less than $30,000 made up 83% of all the non taxable returns.  This has occurred mainly because of the tax credits and allowable deductions.  The truth is that "many Americans are not paying taxes" and are free loading is a myth.  Nearly 100 percent of Americans pay taxes in some way.

Most of those who do not pay taxes are the elderly and students, those who have poor economic circumstances due to the Recession.  Students will have their turn in paying taxes, the elderly paid taxes over their lifetime and have contributed to the revenue stream. For more in depth information read The Hamilton Project.

Related Articles:
Romney is Hiding Too Many Things
Ed Show: Tax Haven Candidate 
Mitt Romney's Top Contributors 
Romney Backed by Goldman Sacks 
Six Ways to Get Richer Under Romney
Mark Levin Goes Nuclear over Romney
Recalculating Romney's four percent Gimmick

Who is Sam Bacile?

Susan Brannon
Who is Sam Bacile pseudonym?
14 September 2012

I reported in "The Film that Sparked the Violence, Egypt, Libya" by using what I would call "credited" mainstream news reports, AP said that they interviewed Sam Bacile while the New York Times reported the same.  I used other outlets who all said the same thing, in the end I could not figure out why the Arab world was attacking American interests, when Bacile was quoted as saying that he was an Israeli Jew.  Later, I read a comment from the state of Israel saying that they could not find a Sam Bacile as a citizen, yet they could not explain more because they protect their citizens.  This left me with my syndical concepts, yeah, Israel would not admit such a thing.

Instead, I played the role of a journalist who took the story and added my opinion.  What I should have done was question the AP (?) who is to be credible and able to research who this Sam Bacile is, their contact and source.  It must have been a hot story to want to get it in the press so quickly without research if the person actually exists.  In the end the media and myself took a run on it.

So, what's the real story?  In Italy, the news is saying that Mr. Bacile is not Israeli but Egyptian, CNN quotes an anti-Muslim activist Steve Klein, who was a script consultant for the movie and was called, "Innocence of Bin Laden" to reveal "facts, evidence and proof" about the prophet Mohammed.  Klein stated that the man with the pseudonym, Sam Bacile, was upset about the events of the film and what happened to the ambassador.

We know that the trailers were translated into Egyptian dialects of Arabic and that the Egyptian television aired certain segments.  The fury followed.

CNN was able to interview some of the actors of the film, who reported an outrage for the producer for "misleading" them regarding the films contents and possible dubbing.  One of the staff told CNN that he knew the producer as Sam Bassil and that is how the check was signed.  He was 99% positive that "Bassil" was not Jewish and had several Madonna's in the home.

Rumors have it that this Bassil/Bacile is a Coptic Christian.  Sam Bassil had an indictment for a bank fraud conviction in 2009 for Nakoula Basseley Nokoula.  With aliases such as:  Mark Basseley Youssef, Yousseff M. Basseley, Nicola Bacily and Malid Ahlawi…were aliases in the indictment.  There is a list of other names on other indictments as well. Does any of these names have anything to do with the film and who produced it or is it just another false lead?

The Feds consider Sam Bacile/Sam Bassil to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula…says Time magazine. He was tracked down Wednesday at his Los Angeles area home by the AP.  Nakoula denied having any connection to Bacile, that he managed "logistics for the film" However, as the investigation continues…the AP discovered that the cell-phone number used by the man who identified himself as Bacile to the press is registered to the same address where the reporter found Nakoula. It has also been reported by ABC that the police were summoned to Nakoula's home to provide extra protection.  However, asking the police for protection does not mean that he is the actual producer.

The mystery remains, who produced the film and who financed it?  We all know that it was a flop during the screening and someone took the July posting (who posted it?) and translated it into Egyptian Arabic to be shown to the Arab world.

In the end, the film has caused protesters aired their anti-American anger in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories. Violent mobs attacked the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi leaving the ambassador and three other Americans dead.

Information taken from Time http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/13/friends-of-sam-bacile-a-whos-who-of-the-innocence-of-muslims-film-project/
CNN http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html

The Film that Sparked the Violence, Egypt, Libya

Susan Brannon
12 September 2012

The Israeli-Jew filmmaker, Sam Bacile, 56 went into hiding after his movie caused an international controversy in Egypt and Libya, where the American ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three others from his staff on Tuesday 11th September late in the evening. Sam Bacile defends his film saying, "Islam is a cancer and that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion."

 In Egypt protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. embassy and replaced the American flag with an Islamic banner. While in Libya, the American consulate was attacked and came under fire by an angry mob in response to the film. Bacile expected something "like this to happen" to be the next Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

The film that triggered the violence is titled, "The Innocence of Muslims" and the movie trailer was released on You Tube on 2 July 2012. Someone dubbed the film into Egyptian Arabic with correct translations. Through the use of the internet through channels of "rumor-heavy" media, has been playing the highly offensive clips from the film. The word quickly spread around the globe regarding the continual insults towards the Islam Prophet Muhammad, violence, and sexual implications that insult the Islam religion.

The film costs $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors. The film claims that Muhammad was a fraud whose obedient followers act as a cadre of goons. Muhammad approves of child sexual abuse, adultery, rape and stealing of others goods. Mr. Bacile says, "The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're fighting with ideas." He identifies himself as an Israeli Jew although he lives in California. He wants "the movie to help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world". Bacile is apologetic about the American ambassador who was killed, but blames the embassy security in the failure of protecting the embassy. 

However, there are two sides to the story, one as an "artist/activist" who has the right to "be creative" and voice freedom of speech" and the second are those who belong to the Muslim the religion themselves. A filmmaker must understand that when he steps out to clearly insult those of another belief system, it will create havoc. In terms of the Jewish/Islam conflicts that have been going on for decades, this is without question a very delicate matter. As a filmmaker, to put oneself and others at high risk and to be willing to produce such insulting materials is arrogant and irresponsible to civil society.

Bacile, knowing that he was insulting the leader of millions of Muslims around the world, as an "American/Israeli" put our country, our leaders and people at a security risk around the globe. Already three people have been killed and the pot is now at the boiling point. The pot against the American people has been at a high simmer for a very long time, and it only took these insults to raise the heat. 

However, if Bacile clams to be an Israeli Jew, living in California, then why did the Muslims in Egypt and Libya attack the American embassy and consulate? Don't you think they should be attacking Israeli embassies instead? No, I am not anti-Semitic, quite the contrary but I can't understand why the uprising was set against the American people.

Even if I was Israeli, or Jewish, I would be angry because Bacile imposes his beliefs as representations of Israeli or Jewish beliefs.  Imagine if the film attacked Judaism in the same manner as it attacks Islam, the news outlets would not only focus on the "uprisings" without mentioning the film's name (as they are doing now), but I am sure that they would include the name of the film and details as to the attack against the Jewish religion with the Rabbis and Israeli Prime Minister making some anger statement for the film.

Yet, I do not believe that the Israeli's would attack the American embassy or consulates and kill innocent people.  I do not condone the violent actions against the American people, it is not the way to resolve the problem and it is not right.

However, it is the action like Bacile's has taken the lives of innocent people through his anti-Muslim attitude and this too is not right.  One life is too much when it is those who are standing on the sideline trying to get by day to day.  I am sorry that we lost our Ambassador to Bacile's arrogance.

New GMO Agent Orange Soy Backed by USDA

Millions of pounds of herbicides are applied to crops around the nation each year. In one single year, 2006, 96.7 million pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on soybeans alone; this is a 20-fold increase from the 4.9 million pounds in 1994, the year before Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds were introduced. Well now, biotechnology giant and creator pesticides and herbicides, Dow AgroSciences is bringing forth brand new GMO soybeans and GMO corn to the market that will ultimately cause more herbicides than ever to be sprayed across the nation. What’s more, the USDA is all over the idea.

2,4-D Herbicide and Super GMO Crops

And perhaps even more startling than the drastic increase in herbicide usage is the fact that Dow AgroSciences’ new genetically modified soy is actually specifically designed to resist an especially toxic herbicide known as 2,4-D, a toxic compound used in the well-known Vitetnam War defoliant Agent Orange. Known to kill or maim at least 400,000 and cause an additional500,000 birth defects according to conservative Viatnamese estimates, Agent Orange is one of the deadliest concoctions on record.

As of now, biotech giant Monsanto still has a tight grasp on the corn and soybean market, with approximately 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn engineered to drown in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup. However, it seems that their control over this market may soon dwindle at rapid speeds, as Roundup is creating a whole new category of superweeds that are resistant to Roundup and the active ingredient in Roundup - glyphosate. These resistant weeds were expected by experts to cover at least 120 million hectares worldwide by 2010.

The solution up until now has been to simply spray more Roundup, but now Dow AgroSciences has come up with a new ‘solution’. Dow is creating new corn and soybean super-corps that are not only resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, but will also be able to withstand large amounts of the company’s aforementioned ‘agent orange’ herbicide, 2,4-D. This way, farmers will be able to apply both herbicides to their fields, with the super toxic 2,4-D killing what Roundup cannot.

That’s right, instead of turning to sustainable and environmentally-friendly farming practices to combat super ‘mutant’ bugs and mega-weeds, the biotech industry is making even stronger and more dangerous super herbicides and toxic recipes.

What Dow is very happy about (while disregarding public health) is that the USDA has shown interest in deregulating both products, with the most recent signaled approval being in early July for the GE soybeans. In fact, the USDA put out a key a document in the regulatory process for GMOs known as the Plant Pest Risk Assessment. Not surprisingly, the USDA’s assessment of Dow’s soy ended with “highly unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.”

So what will be the outcome of all of this? Millions of farmland acreage to be drenched in more herbicides by the millions of pounds. Unfortunately, the claim to safety for the new GE products don’t mean much, as both herbicides and GMOs are consistently shown to cause some form of damage, whether that damage be to the environment, human and animal health, or the biosphere as a whole. Dow’s 2,4-D herbicide, like glyphosate found in Monsanto’s Roundup, is already present in drinking water supplies, so individuals everywhere are already consuming the chemical. But now, exposure to this herbicide is more than likely to exponentially increase, only to cause more complications.

Additional Sources:

Environmental Health Perspectives

MotherJones

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-soy-agent-orange-2-4-d-herbicide/#ixzz252KTHYW9

Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA

Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA

The poison can drift up to 100 miles, and may be in your water! Action Alert!

Remember our article from February about the strain of corn that has been genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide 2,4-D, one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange? Here's the sequel: Dow AgroSciences has petitioned USDA for the deregulation of a new genetic... that is resistant to the same infamous herbicide. Agent Orange, you may recall, was used in Vietnam as chemical warfare, and devastated a generation of both the Vietnamese and the American soldiers who used it.

The USDA has already released a plant pest assessment stating that "the DAS-68416-4 soybean is highly unlikely to pose a plant pest risk." The agency's draft environmental assessment stated that their "preferred alternative" was to deregulate. Even so, we need to file our protests now. This will also lay the groundwork for possible later court action.

Deregulation of this toxic new soybean seed would be a financial boon for Dow. About half of all US farmland is planted in corn and soy, and about 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn are from Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds-that is, they've been engineered to withstand Roundup, Monsanto's herbicide. The problem, as we've noted before, is that "superweeds" are becoming resistant to Roundup. So Dow has genetically engineered a soybean that can withstand an even more toxic herbicide, 2,4-D, the Agent Orange ingredient. This gives Dow a chance to make a tidy profit and try to grab some of the market from Monsanto. 

This poison has been shown to get into drinking water, and has a tendency to drift up to 100 miles on the breeze. It has been shown to cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma and to act as an endocrine disruptor. It is carcinogenic, a neurotoxin, causes liver and kidney damage, and produces birth defects. Nor is there any research on how 2,4-D and glyphosate affect human and wildlife health in combination.

Blackwater to pay fine to settle arms charges - Americas - Al Jazeera English

Remember all my articles about defense contractor corruption and everyone thought I was a conspiracy theorist, anti-American, pushing media propaganda?  Well, this proves my point...I won't say that I told you so!

Blackwater to pay fine to settle arms charges - Americas - Al Jazeera English

The Fed, Ben Bernanke and the rotten Libor - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The Fed, Ben Bernanke and the rotten Libor - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Monsanto to get immunity from the law: video

Related Articles:

The Worst Farm Bill in History
Farm Bill HR6083

The Worst Farm Bill in History

Organic Consumers
email

Last week, the House Agriculture Committee rolled out its version of the Farm Bill (H.R.6083). We told you about Monsanto's latest line of attack on the few laws that actually protect "a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."

If you haven't already taken action to stop Monsanto's sneak attack, both in the House Farm Bill and the Monsanto Rider in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, click here.

Monsanto's attacks on the law's ability to protect farmers and consumers from unwanted, dangerous GMO contamination may be the boldest example of its power over Congress. But there's a lot more in the House Farm Bill that benefits biotechnology and Big Ag at the expense of family farmers and organic and sustainable food and agriculture. The House Farm Bill includes:

$16.1 billion in cuts to food assistance
Eliminates the Organic Certification Cost Share Program
Tens of billions in corporate welfare for the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses
$6 billion in cuts to programs to protect natural resources, invest in beginning and disadvantaged farmers, revitalize local food economies, and promote health and food security
Unlimited subsidies to mega-farms that continue to drive small family farmers out of business
Incentives for growers to drop conservation practices, plow up marginal areas and intensify fencerow-to-fencerow cultivation of environmentally sensitive land
Nearly eight times more support for corn, soy, cotton, rice and wheat than for healthy fruits, nuts and vegetables
Guts the common-sense rules that protect water quality and wildlife from agricultural pesticides
Undermines progress made at the state level for animal rights
Ends fair competition and contract protections for livestock producers
Tell Congress to fix this horrible Farm Bill!

Related Articles:


Monsanto: Above the Law? Video-Report
Farm Bill HR6083

Farm Bill HR6083

Tell Congress: No Free Pass for Monsanto!
By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director
Organic Consumers Fund, July 17, 2012

Urgent action is needed today! The House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision that would give Monsanto and the other biotech companies a free pass for new GMOs and the increased herbicide use they cause.
TAKE ACTION!...Urgent action is needed today!

Monsanto has launched a series of sneak attacks on organic and non-GMO farmers and consumers. They began by attaching a rider to the U.S. House of Representatives' 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would make it impossible for organic and non-GMO farmers and seed growers to defend themselves against GMO contamination. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm)

The rider would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even when courts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally. According to the courts, this results in "the potential elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."

***Now, they've gotten a similar provision attached to the House version of the Farm Bill! ***

This even more dangerous provision would stop the EPA from reviewing new and expanded uses of pesticides (often caused by the introduction of new herbicide-resistant GMO crops) and require the USDA to make the approval of new genetically engineered crops easier and faster, limiting USDA review to 180 days.

While the USDA has never rejected a new GMO crop, public opposition, environmental concerns, and litigation to protect farmers have slowed new approvals. These Monsanto "riders" give Monsanto and the other biotechnology companies a free pass for new GMOs. According to the Center for Food Safety, these new riders would:

--Outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental law, or by any other agency other than USDA.  For example, harm to protected species could occur without any input from our expert wildlife agencies.

--Prohibit other agencies from offering expert input in the review process and instead limit review to solely USDA under the PPA.  However, meaningful review would likely be eliminated by this rider, as USDA's analysis of potential harmful impacts is barred from informing any approval decision.  The agency is also barred from using its broader statutory authority granted in the PPA of 2000, and instead is limited to its old 1957 Federal Plant Pest Act authority.
 
--Force the backdoor approval of GE crops, even if USDA has not reviewed and approved them, through unreasonably short deadlines, which, if not met by the agency, would default to immediate approval and commercialization.  The provisions would also bar any agency funds be spent on impacts analysis beyond the riders' narrow and time-forced approval.

--Codify a dangerous national policy of allowing transgenic contamination in crops and foods, risking loss of GE-sensitive domestic and export markets and loss of biodiversity.

--Limit EPA's oversight of biotech crops engineered to produce or contain a pesticide by forcing the agency to choose the least burdensome choice for industry, regardless of environmental consequences.

(I included the text for the Bill below:  If you don't want to read all the mumbo jumbo, scroll down to the last section it will blow your mind)

Related Articles:

Monsanto: Above the Law? Video-Report
The Worst Farm Bill in History


Text of the Monsanto Farm Bill rider:

 SEC. 10011. PETITIONS TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

a)       PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. The Plant Protection Act is amended by inserting after section 411 (7 U.S.C. 7711) the following new section:


SEC. 411A. PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

a)      PETITION. A person may petition the Secretary for a determination that an organism that is subject to regulation by the Secretary as a plant pest under this Act is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

b)      REVIEW OF PETITION.

1.      ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REQUIRED.  In reviewing a petition submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct the following with respect to an organism that is the subject of the petition:

A.      PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. An assessment of the likelihood that such organism is a plant pest.

B.      ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. An analysis of any likely adverse effects of such organism on the soil, water, air quality, non-target organisms, and listed threatened and endangered species and the critical habitat of such species for the environment in which such organism is likely to be grown or otherwise used under the conditions specified in such petition.

2.      DETERMINATION. The Secretary shall issue a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act if the Secretary determines, based on sound science and the plant pest risk assessment conducted under paragraph (1)(A), that an organism is not likely to be a plant pest.

3.      REVIEW PERIOD.

A.      INITIAL REVIEW PERIOD. Not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary determines that a petition submitted under subsection (a) is complete, the Secretary shall complete the plant pest risk assessment and the environmental analysis required under paragraph (1) and issue a determination with respect to such petition under paragraph (2).

B.      EXTENSION. The Secretary may extend the one-year review period referred to in subparagraph (A) for a petition for one additional period of not more than 180 days if the Secretary determines that additional review is necessary. The Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the petition, in writing, of the reasons for the extension and an estimate of the time period necessary to complete the review.

4.      EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET TIME PERIOD. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if after completing the plant pest risk assessment, but not the environmental analysis, required under paragraph (1), the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that an organism is a plant pest and does not grant or deny a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism within the time period required under paragraph (3), such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

5.      EFFECT ON PESTICIDE REGISTRATION.  In the case of an organism containing a plant-incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) with respect to which an application for registration of the plant-incorporated protectant is pending under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a et seq.), a determination made under paragraph (2) 10 that an organism is not a plant pest or the deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not be effective until the registration of the plant-incorporated protectant contained in such organism is approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 16 136a et seq.). If such registration is not approved, a determination made under paragraph (2) that an organism is not a plant pest or a deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not become effective.

6.      SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. Notwithstanding a determination that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (2) or that such organism has been deemed not to be a plant pest under paragraph (4), the Secretary may issue a determination, based on information discovered after the date of such determination or the date on which the organism was so deemed and sound science, that an organism is a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

7.      PUBLIC NOTICE.

A.      NOTICE. The Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register of

i)                the grant or denial of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to an organism; or

ii)               the deeming that such organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4).

B.      RISK ASSESSMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall provide to the person who submitted a petition under subsection (a), and make available to the public, the risk assessment and environmental analysis prepared under paragraph (1) with respect to such petition.

c)      APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

1.      EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS PERFORMED. Not withstanding any other provision of law, the environ mental analysis required under subsection (b)(1) and as specifically described in such subsection shall be the only analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism that is the subject of a petition submitted under subsection (a) required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such a petition.

2.      PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER ANALYSES. No funds made available by any Act shall be obligated, expended, or used for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism conducted for purposes of this section other than the environmental analysis required under subsection (b)(1).

3.      PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall not require or solicit any financial assistance from a person submitting a petition under subsection (a) for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism or for any other analysis or procedure not specifically authorized by subsection (b)(1).

d)      USE OF DATA FROM PERMITS FOR PURPOSES OF PETITION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT AN ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall use data collected under a permit issued by the Secretary under section 411(a) with respect to an organism, among other relevant data, for purposes of the review of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism.

b)      AUTHORITY OF REVIEW FOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO PERMITS. Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) is amended

1.      by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new subsections:

c)       LIMITATION ON ANALYSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the analyses or procedures required under the regulations issued by the Secretary under the Federal Plant Pest Act and continued in effect in accordance with section 438(c) shall be the only analyses or procedures required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a).

d)     ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in reviewing an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) that is not excluded from environmental review under regulations issued by the Secretary in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection (or any successor regulations), the Secretary shall conduct an environmental analysis described in section 411A(b)(1)(B). Such analysis shall be the only environmental analysis or procedure required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such an application.

c) TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

1. COMPLETENESS.

A.    COMPLETENESS OF PETITIONS. Not withstanding any other provision of law, including section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such petition to be complete and maintain the status such petition had in the process for the review of such petition on such date under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.

B.     COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including subsection (c) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) (as amended by subsection (b)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of such section (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such application to be complete and maintain the status such application had in the process for the review of such application on such date under subsection (a) of such section.

2. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

A.    USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of a petition submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to an organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)) for purposes of a petition submitted under subsection (a) of such section with respect to such organism.

B.     USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to such organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under subsection (d) of such section (as amended by subsection (b)) with respect to such organism.

3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN PETITIONS.

A.    PENDING PETITIONS WITHOUT A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. Notwithstanding section 411A(b)(2) of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the length of the period for the review of petitions submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section for which a plant pest risk assessment has not been completed on or before such date of enactment.

B.    PENDING PETITIONS WITH A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT.

i)      DEEMING OF CERTAIN PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to each covered petition, if the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that the organism that is the subject of such covered petition is a plant pest and the Secretary does not grant or deny such covered petition not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

ii)     COVERED PETITION DEFINED. In this subparagraph, the term "covered petition" means a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for which a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment have been published and a notice and comment period on each assessment has been completed as of such date of enactment.

4. REGULATIONS. Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.


SEC. 10012. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

a)      RELOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE RELATING TO NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended

1.   by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and

2.   by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection:

 e) NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK.

1.      IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall establish a program to be known as the 'National Clean Plant Network' (referred to in this subsection as the 'Program').

2.      REQUIREMENTS. Under the Program, the Secretary shall establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and pathogen elimination services

A.    to produce clean propagative plant material; and

B.    to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material in sites located throughout the United States.

3.      AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN PLANT SOURCE MATERIAL. Clean plant source material produced or maintained under the Program may be made available to

A.    a State for a certified plant program of the State; and

B.   private nurseries and producers.

4. CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION. In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall

                  A.   consult with

                           i)      State departments of agriculture; and

ii)    land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and

C.      to the extent practicable and with input from the appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant centers.

b)      FUNDING. Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is amended

1.   in paragraph (3), by striking "and" at the end;

2.  in paragraph (4), by striking "and each fiscal year thereafter." and inserting "; and";        and

3.  by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

         "5. $71,500,000 for fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.".

c)      REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION. Section 10202 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is repealed.

d)      CLARIFICATION OF USE OF FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

g)     RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW. The use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).

SEC. 10013. AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF PLANTS.

a)      REGULATION OF PLANTS UNDER PLANT PROTECTION ACT. Subject to subsection (b), any living stage of a plant, including any nucleic acid or other genetic material as contained in such plant, shall be exclusively subject to regulation under statutes under which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue regulations with respect to plants, including the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

b)      REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. A pesticidal substance contained in a plant shall be subject to regulation as a plant incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

c)      REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. The regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), including section 3(c)(1)(C) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(C)), section 3(c)(2)(A) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)), section 7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136e), section 8 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136f), section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136g), and section 17 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136o), shall

1.      be based on sound science;

2.      use the least burdensome requirements; and

3.      provide for exemptions from the requirements otherwise applicable to pesticides that are not plant-incorporated protectants.

d)      DEFINITIONS. In this section:

1.      PLANT. The term "plant" has the meaning given such term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702).

2.      PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCE. The term "pesticidal substance" means a substance or a mixture of substances that

A.   is contained in any living stage of a plant that

i)      as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, is subject to part 340 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations; or

ii)    has been determined not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(2) or deemed not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(4); and

B.    is intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.


SEC. 10014. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report on the measures taken and proposed to be taken by the Secretaries and the Administrator to provide for balanced and appropriate regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology products, by

1.      reducing regulatory burdens on research conducted by academic institutions, small businesses, and public entities in developing lower-cost plant and animal sources of food, feed, fuel, and fiber developed through biotechnology, with special emphasis on minor use crops, orphan crops, and sources of protein;

2.      identifying categories of products developed through biotechnology for which a history of safe use has been established and providing with respect to such products reduced data requirements, expedited review periods, exemptions from regulation, and other measures, as appropriate, based on sound science; and

3.      developing and implementing a cohesive national policy for the low-level presence of agronomic biotechnology material in crops, including grain and other commodity crops, for food, feed, and processing.

Mitt Romney's Top Contributors

Susan Brannon
12 July 2012

Looking that the list below for the top contributors to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, I can't help to wonder why these are the companies that are supporting him.  Actually, it is a bit scary most of them are banks, like the big ones that are known to have caused the mess that we are in like the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup and...get this:  the Credit Suisse Group.

The New York Times reported that big named donors  "are descending on Utah’s exclusive Deer Valley resort this weekend for what invitees are calling Republicanpalooza: a two-day retreat featuring Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, Jeb Bush and John McCain."  They go on further to explain, "But the highlight for the 700 guests, who either contributed $50,000 or raised $250,000 for the campaign, will be unfettered access to Mr. Romney himself," 


Romney is tied to Wall Street interests as we can see by the donors list.  Do we really want another Wall street guy running our country?  If these guys donated this much, you can bet that they will expect something in return for their buck.  Watch out America...have we not learned anything yet?  My question is:  How did we vote Romney in this far into the game?  What is the matter with the American people?  Did we not learn anything from our 2008 tumble?


Compare the list at the bottom to the donors for Obama:  Obama's donors are educators, and technology such as Microsoft, DLA Piper, Google, UofC and Harvard.  These are the folks that Obama will have to "pay back"  wouldn't we rather have our candidate pay back education and technology that will help to grow our economy for now and our future, rather than those who sit high on wall street?  Think about it. 

Related links:  The Truth about Fraud and the B&A Foreclosures; Making Sense of the B&A Mortgage Fraud ; How does Goldman Sachs Makes its profits? ; Goldman Sachs: Robbing America ; Keiser Report: JP Morgan ; One Example of Wall Street Corruption ;  What is Wall Street?  

Goldman Sachs	$593,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$467,089
Bank of America	$425,100
Morgan Stanley	$399,850
Credit Suisse Group	$390,360
Citigroup Inc	$312,800
Kirkland & Ellis	$264,302
Wells Fargo	$237,550
Barclays	$234,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers	$227,250
Deloitte LLP	$222,250
HIG Capital	$216,995
UBS AG	$207,750
Blackstone Group	$198,800
Bain Capital	$156,500
Elliott Management	$146,275
Marriott International	$137,827
General Electric	$135,450
Bain & Co	$130,550
EMC Corp	$129,450

The great American Election

This election is serious this time around while things are falling apart all around us and worldwide.  We need to be as informed as possible regarding those who are running, before we elect them to run our country.  Imagine 4 years of someone who is known to lie to the public even before they are elected; imagine what they will be able to lie to us about later.  Imagine the future condition of our country if someone who cannot be open and honest runs this country.


We are in a time where the rubber meets the road and every single person who can vote should go out and vote.  No excuses.  I understand that Obama has let us down in many ways, but we must remember what the state of our country was in when he came in and the known snowballing of the things that Bush had already put into action just before he left office.  


In reality, things are actually simple but on a larger scale for the economy in America.  If a person looses their job and gets behind on their bills, it takes about 6 months for every month that they get behind to catch up.  This is an average.  Image this situation on a larger scale, the American economy:  to fix things it takes longer and it does not all fall into Obama's lap.  Get real on this.  Corporations have lost their social responsibility to the people of America by cutting health benefit costs in the billions by hiring more part time workers and less full time workers denying the worker any assistance in benefits.  We put less in the system because our income in lower and the corporations pay less into the system as well.  


It is not our presidents alone that can solve this, it is also those who run the corporations.  Most of these corporations can afford to have full time workers, but chose not to because they can get away with it.  Most of these corporations deposit billions of dollars into foreign banks as a tax cut, because they can all at the Americans expense.


It is time for us to say "enough" and stand up boycott those corporations, no matter how much we "like" their services that they offer and walk away.  We need to walk away from the banks that took advantage of the American people promising them homes that they could not afford, robbing each and every one of us for this time and for our future.  


It is where the money is, that hurts the corporations and don't fool yourselves.  They really don't care.  But we must care and take action to stand up and stop putting money in their pockets.


Research your leaders and vote, write letters, sign petitions, and write some more, make calls and move your money out of the companies that are known to rob the American people.


related articles:
Tax Haven Candidate (Video)

Romney is hiding too many things

This is an excerpt from an email that I received:

Today, The Boston Globe reported that Romney was still running Bain Capital two years after he claims he left the firm, directly contradicting his campaign's denial that he was involved in deals that led to layoffs, bankruptcies, and American jobs getting shipped overseas.

It's a pattern of secrecy, and this is just the latest example of him trying to hide the truth from voters. There are a number of issues in play right now -- and voters deserve answers:

1) Mitt Romney refuses to release multiple years of taxes, ignoring decades of precedent.

2) He won't disclose his "bundlers," the people raising millions for his campaign.

3) He is the sole owner of a questionable shell corporation in Bermuda.

4) Until recently, Romney kept cash in a Swiss bank account.

5) According to the Globe, he hasn't been honest about when he was running Bain Capital, even though legal documents refute his claims.