Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

GMO Giants To Send Retired Cops To Farms

December 3, 2012 by  

GMO Giants To Send Retired Cops To Farms
PHOTOS.COM

Genetically modified food giant DuPont has hired dozens of retired law enforcement professionals to sic on farmers it expects of saving seeds from harvests of its patented soybeans for use in the next planting year.

The company has contracted Canadian-based Agro Protection International, a company that contracts retired police officers to patrol potential violations of intellectual property law. The former cops, who already patrol Canadian farms for signs of double planting, will head out to American soybean farms that have seed contracts with DuPont next year. The company plans to sue farmers who use seeds from harvest for contract violations.

“Farmers are never going to get cheap access to these genetically engineered varieties,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The biotech industry has trumped the legitimate economic interests of the farmer again by raising the ante on intellectual property.”

DuPont currently controls 36 percent of the soybean market in the United States — more than GMO giant Monsanto, from which it licenses the rights to sell U.S. farmers Roundup Ready soybeans that can withstand heavy doses of pesticides and herbicides. DuPont generated $1.37 billion in sales last year from soybean seeds, while Monsanto made $1.77 billion on the seeds and licenses.

The company has sued 145 farmers since 1997, according to Bloomberg, and won all of the 11 cases related to the suits that went to court. The Supreme Court said last month that it will soon consider whether the GMO planting restrictions are legal.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “GMO Giants To Send Retired Cops To Farms”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Right Brain Thinker

    And the corporate oligarchy continues to tighten its grip. There is considerable irony in the fact that the small farmer is perhaps one of the best examples of the “free market risk takers” that some on this site are constantly applauding. The independent small farmer invests in seed, fertilizer, equipment, fuel, and labor every year and gambles that the weather will cooperate and he will make a good return on his crops.

    He saves seed from his harvest for the next planting and he has broken a law? And has to be tracked down by the hired “Corporate Statist Thugs”? The very first farmers saved seed from harvests and farmers have been doing it for the millenia that have passed since. It would appear to be “God’s Will” that it be done that way—-that the “natural law” of living things was not intended to be a “profit opportunity” for the greedy rich. We’re not talking about a patent on a “widget” or a copyright on a song here. Manipulating a few genes does not convey the same right of ownership.

    Let’s hope O’Bama has a chance to name some Supreme Court justices before this issue comes before the court. Otherwise we may get another Citizen’s United type decision, except that this time the corporations will be elevated to a bit more than “personhood”. They will be elevated to a position where they can claim equal status with the Creator.

    Of course, this issue will be moot in a few years anyway. The small farmer is a dying breed and is being replaced by huge corporate farming operations. Once corporate fascism takes full control, the farmers will just be serfs and it won’t matter where the seed comes from as long as the wealth that is created all “trickles” upward.

    • CaroleAnn

      Right Brain Thinker,
      I agree, these huge Corporations have too much power. I read that about 47% of all Agriculture subsidies go to the big Agriculture giants which makes it all the easier for them to crowd out the little guy.

      They don’t label these GMO foods, because most of us will not buy themt if we know.

    • Vigilant

      “Let’s hope O’Bama [sic] has a chance to name some Supreme Court justices before this issue comes before the court. Otherwise we may get another Citizen’s United type decision, except that this time the corporations will be elevated to a bit more than “personhood”. They will be elevated to a position where they can claim equal status with the Creator.”

      RBT, your other points are well taken. I would, however, caution against thinking that an activist SCOTUS appointee would necessarily sway results in the manner you expect. There can be no doubt that corporatism has extended itself ubiquitously.

      Moreover, please recognize that corporations were given the status of artificial persons long before Citizens United.

      P.S. Obama is not Irish (:-)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Good points, Vigilant.

        And Barry H. O’Bama is too Irish! (More so than he’s Kenyan, that’s for sure)

        Didn’t you read my posting on another thread about the new information that has come to light on his ancestry? They have discovered that a boatload of Kenyans got shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland in 1376 or thereabouts and that O’Bama is descended from one of them. He’s one of those “Black Irish” that folks are always talking about. Donald Trump has yet to refute this so it must be true.

        All the &4+$#@**& that insist on calling President O’Bama all those childish, ignorant, and disrespectful names refuse to admit this because Barry H. O’Bama is much too “American sounding” and they couldn’t twist it around like they do Barrack Hussein Obama. My sources tell me that President O’Bama even briefly considered revealing the truth and using O’Bama on the ballot so that the ignorant wouldn’t be turned off by his “foreign sounding” name. He decided not to do that because he felt that he should get elected on his principles rather than on what he looks like or what his name sounds like—-and the voters agreed.

        PS I made a reply to you on that now dead thread where we were discussing the Declaration and the Preamble—-you may want to go back and look at it.

      • Vigilant

        RBT, please see my response to Karolyn below. It would appear that justices on both sides of the court have relatively uniform views in cases such as this.

      • Vigilant

        RBT, thanks for directing me back to that thread. I would not have done so if you hadn’t.

        Can I call you “Old Man” now? (:-)

        I’ll say one thing for us: our proficiency in the English language, compared to today’s generation, points to a better education system overall in the 1950s and 60s.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vigilant says: “Can I call you “Old Man” now? (:-)”

        You can call me anything you want as long as you call the President Barry H. O’Bama.
        Actually, I learned long ago that the real measure of a person was not the names they were called (or called people), but rather the “truth” of what ideas they espoused. Names roll off my back.

        (A little side story about that: A custodian that didn’t like me because I was always on his lazy behind called me down to look at the graffiti on a boys room wall. He was grinning because it was all about me and saying things like “Mr. **** sucks”, “Mr. **** eats ****” and so on. He asked me if I wanted it cleaned off. If I had said yes, it would have stayed up for days. I said “No, leave it up there”. His mouth fell open at that. When he said “Why?”, I said “Because, if you haven’t noticed, they put MISTER in front of my name every time—-showed me proper respect” He looked at me dumbly until I said “And the longer you leave it up there, the more they’ll put up alongside it, so do what you want”, at which point he got the point and went for his cleaning supplies.)

        You also said: “I’ll say one thing for us: our proficiency in the English language, compared to today’s generation, points to a better education system overall in the 1950s and 60s”.

        We could talk for hours about that. We may have been better students then because we had better parents because it was the golden age of the middle class and our mothers didn’t have to work because our fathers could support the family on one pay check because (wait for it……., as Jay says) ……….the greedy rich and the corporate oligarchy weren’t bleeding off the income and wealth for themselves and………..need I say more?

        Seriously, the schools and teachers of today are trying just as hard as they did back in our day. It’s just a different country and world in so many ways.

    • vicki

      Right Brain Thinker writes:
      “He saves seed from his harvest for the next planting and he has broken a law?”

      Since the farmer signed a contract with the owner of the seeds to grow and harvest plants only and not to keep or harvest the seeds then the farmer has violated the contract.

      If a farmer wants to harvest seeds too than he shouldn’t buy seeds from Dupont or Monsanto or whomever.

      It’s really that simple.

      • JC

        Sad but true Vicki. The fact is GMO seed shouldn’t be purchased by anybody, ever.
        It depletes soil conditions and renders the soil useless within 4 or 5 years. Third worl people’s have been getting free GMO seed for some time now and they are learning this painful lesson…no more food can be grown and they eventually starve. More awesome work from the Globalists.

      • Average Joe

        The problem lies not only with the contract. GMO foods also cotaminate other local crops thereby dragging other farmers into possible patent infringement. There was a case a few years ago where a farmer’s corn was cross-polinated by Monsanto GMO corn grown nearby (most of his neighbors signed the contract with Monsanto, but he said NO). Monsanto sued for patent infringement and won the case. The man had spent nearly 2 million dollars on the suit…he lost his farm.
        The cross-pollination is my biggest beef…they are ruining all of our foods and then claiming that they own the patent on it…..

        He who controls the money, may control the government…But he who controls the food supply…controls everything……

        Boycott all Monsanto and Dupont products….stop the money…starve the beast…nothing else will work. (vote with your wallet).

        AJ

      • Karolyn

        AJ – There was a recent (1-2 months ago) protest staged worldwide against Monsanto. We have a Monsanto test location about 28 miles from here, and every time I pass the place I want to throw dog poo on their sign.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JC once again proves his ignorance of science by saying:

        “GMO seed depletes soil conditions and renders the soil useless within 4 or 5 years. Third world peoples have been getting free GMO seed for some time now and they are learning this painful lesson…no more food can be grown and they eventually starve”.

        If JC took the time to get educated on this topic, he would find that GMO SEED has NOTHING to do with “depleting soil conditions”. The use of GMO seed was only one part of the Green Revolution, and NOT the part that created the problem. Some varieties of GM crops mature a lot faster and allow farmers to grow second or even third crops in a season rather than just one. That “uses up” the soil much faster. The Green Revolution also succeeded because of heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, both of which have disrupted the natural chemistry of the soil. The Green Revolution also encouraged third world farmers to push out into marginal land that they never would have farmed before. Another problem is that the GR also fended off the starvation that Ehrlich talked about in The Population Bomb and allowed populations to continue to skyrocket, leaving larger numbers vulnerable to the “painful lessons”.

        Yes, there are “painful lessons” being taught and people are going hungry, but it is not because of GMO seed.

      • JC

        Well Right Brain…explain your theories to the people’s of Nepal and Northern India who can no longer grow anything where they have used GMO seed for the last few years.
        That’s a fact.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JC, Please go back and read what I said. It is a FACT that many farmers in Nepal and Northern India are having problems with their crops because of soil problems. It is a FACT that it has NOTHING to do with what kind of seed they used beyond the fact that some GMO seed has allowed them to plant too many crops in one season. It is a FACT that they have overused chemicals. (And I’ll throw in a new one—there are water issues that contribute as well). No “theories” involved at all. It’s all perfectly understandable to anyone who isn’t trying to grind some ignorant ax and therefore refuses to educate himself. (As in YOU).

      • Lisa

        Smarter to boycott these GMO seeds and Dupont or Monsanto products in general. They are only in it for what their greedy selves can profit from it at the expense of farmers and consumers of soybeans and other crops. Plant only seeds where you can plant future generations of the better ones.

      • JC

        Dear “Wrong Brain”, I don’t have an axe to grind…I just like to warn people of the inherent dangers attached to blindly using whatever the UN and it’s corporate buddies are “literally” trying to shove down our throats…but do go on playing “shill” for the Globalist pricks won’t you? It looks good on a so called liberal to show his true colors anyway. :)

    • Karolyn

      As I mentioned in another post, Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto attorney for four years and consistently sides with them. Should he not recuse himself from these cases?

      • Vigilant

        “Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto attorney for four years and consistently sides with them. Should he not recuse himself from these cases?”

        Karolyn, you have a lot less to fear from Thomas than you do from Kagan. Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto from 1976-79. That’s 33 years ago.

        Moreover, Thomas sided with the (7-1) majority in the high profile case in 2010. Of that case, it was said, “the Supreme Court has also now ruled for the very first time that “environmental harm” includes economic effects such as reduced agricultural yield or loss of market due to genetic contamination, as well as the concept of what biologists refer to as “gene flow” (in practice, the idea that genetically engineered material may get into conventional plants through cross-pollination). The Supreme Court now accepts that this phenomenon in and of itself is harmful and illegal under current environment protections.

        “That’s a huge win for our side … That’s gigantic!” Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist of Consumers Union, told me. Future lawsuits can now confidently use the gene-flow argument against approval and use of genetically engineered crops.” (http://grist.org/article/food-supreme-court-ruling-on-monsanto-alfalfa/).

        Here’s what was said about Solicitor General Kagan at the time:

        “In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.

        “Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general’s office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case. Monsanto appealed the lower court’s decision so the USDA was not party to the suit. The Solicitor General’s office produced an amicus brief during the petitioning stage of the appeal at the behest of the Supreme Court.

        “As Kagan’s office argued, “The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court.” (www.counterpunch.org/2010/05/19/elena-kagan-and-monsanto/).

  • http://uncleteddysreeducationcamp.com teddy maher

    Lets examine their methodology ….. You take a group of retirees that are already on the dole with an abusive pension that is subsidized by working stiffs through local and state taxes and you empower them once again to protect the interests of a corporation who has countless charges of abuse of the free enterprise system….This group of retirees will be the first echalon of defense for this government who obviously cannot protect us but is certainly capable of protecting itself against us…. scary..

  • eddie47d

    So much for thinking that Canada will be a safe place to run to as some have suggested. Small farms had little chance of survival before and it seems to get worse. The next TV series won’t be Little House On The Prairie but DuPont on the Prairie. Maybe a series on How Monsanto Stole The Farm would be more correct. The new Grinch? I still don’t trust GMOs because the companies refuses to be honest about them. They still won’t label GMO products or inform us about any dangers that may arise from consuming these food products. Yes Kate 8 I have signed several PETITIONS on making Monsanto responsible for what they use on the way to market . Now will you call me a liar on that too?

    • Mikey

      We in California, had the opportunity to make these unnatural foods labeled as such. Unfortunately, the big money somehow convinced people that a simple label would greatly increase the cost of food. The ballot measure was defeated. Makes me wonder how gullible the sheeple really are.

      • vicki

        Considering the number of interesting “exceptions” written into the bill, it would be a bad choice to have voted for that bill. As stated by many of the “no” crowd. It is a good idea but a bad bill. (Technically it was an initiative not a bill.)

        http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_%282012%29

        The “no on 37″ section in the article will give you an earful :) The “yes on 37″ is just above the “no” section so you can read both and decide for yourself if Californians made the choice YOU would have made.

      • eddie47d

        You are correct Mikey and that vote was disappointing.

      • Mikey

        And Vicky is right about the exemptions, too many. We need to try again at the next election, and this time with far fewer exemptions.

    • duane

      It almost sickens me that you and I agree 100% on something. I agree with what you are saying and trying to say, although we are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. I am all for labeling of foods that are gmo. I also shop at farmers markets and buy local and organic foods when they are in season. I shy away from imported foods that are labeled organic because their requirements are suspect to say the least.

  • Rogue Elephant

    We want our patent rights, but don’t you dare pass a law allowing anyone to know where our patented products are used.

  • http://yahoo bob peters

    WAAWAAWAAWAA whiners!!! you are now a communist country..live with it! you voted these retards in..I .didn’t…..

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Bob,

      In spite of a lot of people screaming “socialist-marxist-communist” all the time, we are really turning into a corporate fascist state. Did you even read what teddy and I said?

    • eddie47d

      Bob Peters: Monsanto hired lawyers and spies decades ago to protect their interests. They even hired crop police who investigated adjoining farms and took them to court back then. This is nothing new except DuPont and Monsanto are getting bolder because few spoke out against them years ago. Now if you meant to say Reagan, H Bush,Clinton, G Bush and Obama administrations are all retards on this issue then I’ll buy that.

      • CaroleAnn

        Right Eddie47d,

        Too many people want to lay this at the door of one administration, that is misleading and unproductive. Big Business has no place buying favors in Congress or the WH, we have to get the money out our elections. Cash is property not free speech.

      • Vigilant

        I may have missed something, but by what authority do these rent-a-cops have to trespass on private property? Seems to me their (apparently warrantless) searches are a violation of the 4th Amendment, n’est ce pas?

      • JC

        Exactly right Vigilant…what credentials do they carry that elevate them above the status of trespasser? For sure there will be some farmers who would happily light them up if they were caught snooping around.

    • Daveh234

      Patenting strains of “seeds” and growing living plants started back in the Reagan era. The powers in the game were lined up when the patent laws were expanded and literally were allowed to “own” our basic food items.
      We are only now realizing the vast potential harm it will inflict on small farmers and people who need to eat to stay alive.
      That corn is more than likely theirs.

      • Vigilant

        Patenting strains of “seeds” and growing living plants has been going on for over a century.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vigilant,
        Are you sure it wasn’t the NAMES they were COPYRIGHTING? This is different today. The companies are claiming rights to govern the use of seed that the farmers grew themselves. And the cases that have come to court were settled on the basis of contract law, not the “rightness” of some company “owning” a piece of the Creator’s handiwork. There’s a difference.

      • Vigilant

        RBT, I think the named variety was patented, i.e., in every case I’m familiar with, the particular hybridized strain could only be marketed under that name. I imagine you may be right in that anyone else could create a virtually identical hybrid, but it couldn’t be marketed under the proprietary name.

        That being said, hybrids are exceptionally unsuitable for seed-saving purposes. Only “heirloom” seeds reliably produce the same plant every year. The idea, such as a super-sweet corn, was to make it so desirable that the consumer would need to purchase seed from the proprietor every year to guarantee identical results.

        I agree with you that the GMO business is entirely different, and that agribusiness should have no proprietary, let alone moral, right to prevent the independent production and planting of seed. If they wish to protect their investment, then they need to increase the price of seed on one-time basis and be done with it.

        P.S. The motivation for my original comment was to clarify to Dave234 that some issues can’t be politicized.

  • Gordon

    So a farmer makes a contract to grow a crop and in that contract he agrees to NOT keep any of the crop for reseeding in the future. When he does STEAL seeds from the company in violation of his agreement, then he should be ignored? So it is bad that a company tries to protect its interests in a patented product and prevent theft of their product? Think about it. How many of YOU have stolen from your employers?

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Go back and reread my original comment and some of the others. It is the companies that have stolen what is rightly the property of all that we are complaining about. The fact is that we have a corrupt political system that has turned capitalism into a tool for the greedy rich and the corporate oligarchs, particularly in allowing the patenting of “living things”—a soybean plant is not a drug or a chemical or a process. It is not “their” product that the farmer is stealing, and “their” interests that need protecting, but ours..

      • vicki

        Rather than complaining about Patents (There is a lot to complain about there btw) You could take a page from the software industry and form some groups of farmers and create your own “strain” of plants and release them to the public under interesting licensing agreements. Or even release them to the public domain.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki,
        I’m not going to search for it, but what you suggest HAS happened. If memory serves, some strains of rice from the green revolution were developed with public money and were given out freely, much to the dismay of the companies that wanted to get rich from selling their “patented” varieties.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I want to go back the old days where, if you BOUGHT something, it was yours, to do with what you wanted!!! NOWADAYS corporations have pulled their political strings and CLAIM that if you BUY their product, you don’t OWN it. You’re only allowed to USE it!!! What a crock!!! WE should REFUSE to BUY anything from them!!!

      • vicki

        Correct. Buy only from companies that sell you the seeds and the rights to all produce from those seeds. No one needs to buy from just Monsanto anymore that anyone needs to buy Microsoft Windows.

    • Karolyn

      Gordon – How about the farmers who are being sued by Big Agra for using GMO patented seeds that were blown into their fields from adjoining property? These big corps have even beein the cause of suicides in India by farmers who could not pay. I understand your premise, but there have to be limits. Eventually, they will own all seed. It’s just not right!

      • vicki

        Sue the big corporations for not controlling their pollution :) And that is a serious suggestion since the seeds are obviously unwanted and polluting the ground and crops of the adjoining farm.

        The trouble is the adjoining farm would have to sue the farmer that grew the GMO crop. HE would have to sue the corporation for selling him ‘defective’ product. The corporation would claim that the product is “working as designed”

        It could be a lawyers dream and a farmers nightmare. Lots of interesting precedent in civil law related to manufactured products.

      • roger

        if cross pollenation should occur on adjoining acreage and the owner of said acreage has no contract with the seller of the seeds, there is no case in controversy. none. period.

      • Karolyn

        Roger – So far Monsanto has won many of its cases. Did you know Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto attorney and is consistently ruling in favor of Monsanto? I recently read of one farmer who did win a suit against Monsanto. News on this issue can be found at Alliance for Natural Health
        http://www.anh-usa.org/

  • roger

    make a nice fertile spot in the soil with these spys, beans grow better with good soil…;)

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      If anyone to buy his own peice of ground and farm it, they must get approval from 7 federal agancies,startind with Homeland Security, EPA, Dept of Defence,Federal Wildlife & Fisheries Agancy,USGeological Survey Agency, Sustatainable Agenda 21, and of course US Dept When idoits whine about GMO food, of AG. All book trained idoits , all taught by other book trained morons professors about theories, not real life experience. All of these loons have never produced a item of food for human consompsion. Just look a the layers of overpaid government leeches the GMO crossbred in the WH surrounds him self with. Instead of getting hybrd vigor Americcan got all the negitive recessive genitic material. Like a parisitic beleif of living off of someone else’s expended energy. The socialist democrat have always possessed a nematode mindset of everything with night soil ttaste and smell,, is just one of the main planks in the socialistdemocrat parties platform.

      • 45caliber

        And they do not eat the food they insist the rest of us must use. They get their food at government expense and eat only the best of everything. That way, if there are any problems with the genetic changes, they don’t encounter them. If the rest of us die from that, it’s okay because “there are too many humans as it is and we need to reduce the world population”.

  • http://pesonalliberty.com Bob D.

    You cannot start a hybrid plant with a year old seed from your last years crop. You will probably get a plant but it will not bear fruit. I don’t believe this story for that reason.

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      Don’t know what plant you got the seed from, but I’ve tested seed saved from certified GMO seeds for up to 2 years old. If you got your info from a seed company advertisement. or have you tried acreage feild test!

      • http://pesonalliberty.com Bob D.

        I defy anybody to plant a high bred corn seed two years off certification and as a result get a crop. You might get plants but the fruit will be stunted or non existant.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      It’s true that many hybrids are sterile and/or don’t come true if you try to grow them from their seed. These soybeans are apparently not hybrids in that sense. The term “hybrid” means to actually mate or cross two parents to produce an offspring that shares a whole package of genes from both. Some are sterile and others are not. Horse and Donkey = Mule. Lab and Poodle = Labradoodle.

      GMO organisms are not “bred” in the true sense but have certain individual genes inserted into them, and often from totally unrelated organisms, in order to produce a desired effect. You can put a “fish” gene in a plant and perhaps get a beneficial result.

      This article appears tp be 100% true in all respects.

  • 45caliber

    The big farmers have land all over the country. If there is drought in one area, another makes good bucks. The money they get for failed crops is a give-me since they make more than enough at other sites to absorb any loss.

    Small farmers, on the other hand, are restricted to one area. If there is a crop failure, they can be in trouble – but usually aren’t. Most sell their crops to speculators prior to planting – sometimes years in advance. They get paid regardless of the crop – the speculators get the money from the government if there is a crop failure or make profits off the crop if the yield is good.

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      .45, you forgot the millions of acres of farmground that have been idles for over 3 decades, all land owners getting paid by taxpayers to do nothing and producing nothing. The first Sec of Ag, appointed by another socialist democrat (FDR) chose a registered communist, who thaught Russia’s collective farming methods were the best. Every farm bil,l keeps embracing tighter government meddling and more control by agency idoit degreed morons.

      • 45caliber

        You are right – but it is usually the big farmers (corporation farmers) who can take advantage of that. They get paid for not growing various crops (peanuts, corn, wheat, etc.) and then get paid for not growing anything on it so they get paid multiple times – and then deduct why they might have grown from their taxes. Further, they buy the worst land (meaning cheap land) to do this with so most of it really isn’t farm land since it won’t grow anything anyway. The real problem with the small farmers is that they can’t afford to bribe anyone and don’t have some brother-in-law working for the government that they can call upon. Rice used to be (and probably still is) a big money maker but can only be grown if you have a government permit. Some farmers can plant 100% of their farm in rice by permit – others can plant only a couple of acres.

  • Maryland Freestater

    Don’t know how true this tidbit is, but I’ve read on same conspiracist websites that GMO soybean consumption will cause sterility within 3 human generations.

    If this is correct, we’re subsidizing our own suicide as a species.

    I DO know that soybeans contain a high amount of an estrogen-like hormone, which is just dandy for men with reduced testosterone counts.

    Unless people start waking up, maybe we deserve to become extinct – possibly replaced with Bigfoot now that a 5-year genetic study has concluded it’s a subspecies of H. sapien…

    For Christmas, I want Santa to take me with him to the North Pole – almost anything’s better than our current reality.

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      Between the Unisex, and airy fairy, girly mindset idoits, and promotion of mama boy whimps like Omoron and his boys should act like girls, instituted in public education. Over the last few decades combined with tofu. It is no wonder there is more he/shes or she/hes. That is why most livesock producers do scrotal measurements on breeding stock. In the mid 60′s when soybean meal was the” supplement” to increase body rating on gestating cows, My Granddad and my dad would not feed any soybean products, but only corn, barely, and milo. The steers we always rated higherin gainability, and our private treaty commerical bulls were agressive breeders, compared to herd bulls from high soybean supplent raised bulls.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Ignoring your introductory “remarks”, it certainly sounds like you know your “bulls” (and I will resist any lame jokes about BS)

        Seriously, your mention of “he/she’s” brings to mind what is happening in the Potomac River. Male Smallmouth Bass with both male and female reproductive organs are turning up in large numbers in the Potomac. The suspected cause is hormones in the water that have washed down from the chicken and turkey farms in W VA. Said hormones were put into the feed to promote growth and egg laying, etc. Same thing with antibiotics in the water. And guess where a large part of metropolitan DC—MD and VA gets its drinking water?

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Who knows whether what the conspiracists say will ever come true—-as the saying goes, an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters will sooner or later type out Hamlet.

      No matter—–In three generations, global warming will have whatever humans survive worrying about a lot more than their testosterone levels. And, in a related scoop, there is no reality at the North Pole other than that the ice there is disappearing. (And Santa has been corrupted to serve the needs of the corporate oligarchy and is less fun now).

      PS PLEASE give a link to the TRUTH about Bigfoot—a five year genetic study no less, and you put the words on paper here so it MUST be true, right? Did you get it from The Onion?

      • Maryland Freestater

        Re Bigfoot – can’t give a URL BUT I did find this on YahooNews, pretty much the closest thing to ‘news’ I read anymore. From being a Bigfoot aficionado, I’ve read there are several DNA profiling initiatives happening concurrently.

        Don’t laugh – I feel much safer with Bigfoot than with BigBrother…

      • 45caliber

        Right:

        I saw an article in the Daily Mail (England paper) about this. Some character in the US supposedly “discovered” that 15,000 years ago Bigfoot mated with human women and therefore exists. Supposedly this is due to DNA. However, since they have no modern Bigfoot DNA (or even old DNA), I couldn’t understand where they came up with this.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        That’s what I was getting at, 45cal. If we’re talking about “5 year genetic studies”, there has to be some DNA floating around right now. Maybe not from an actual BF body, but you can get enough DNA from scat or hair to analyze. Big news if it’s true. I may google a bit and see what I can find.

      • 45caliber

        Right:

        It was also in today’s Houston Chronicle. Supposedly they got the DNA from a partially eaten bagel they are certain Big Foot was trying….

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Did some googling and there is some “truth” to all this genetic stuff. At least in the minds of those who want to believe that Bigfoot exists. The ones who are doing the studies ARE serious about their delusions, but their work will likely never stand up to scientific scrutiny. You know, as in when they publish and that thing called “peer review” is done?.

        Just think about it, all this time and all those hunters all over the world killing millions of animals of one kind or another and not one has spotted and shot a Bigfoot, or ever found one that died from natural causes? We find dinosaur bones and frozen Mammoths with regularity, why is Bigfoot so elusive?

        Oh wait, somebody’s neighbor’s brother-in-law DID have a clear shot at one with his trusty .30-06 Model 70 with a 5-power scope but he didn’t shoot. Why?, because when he looked at BF through the scope, he looked “too human” and he “just couldn’t do it”.

        Lord love a duck.

        (PS I read somewhere that bagels make good BF bait—-a good one sure gets my attention)

  • Karolyn

    “8 Principles for Understanding the Fiscal Cliff in Two Minutes, 30 Seconds”
    http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/12/03-1

    • JC

      I got as far as #5 before nearly vomiting.
      Define “the wealthy” for me please. Who exactly are they?
      And what is the “fair share” of this undefined group?
      And who do we rob when they are bled dry and we’re no where near balancing the books?

      “Fair” by the way is a concept of children and communists and exists
      no where else in nature.

      I agree that Corporatism has got to go, but Communism is not the answer.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Nice link, Karolyn—-speaks to truth.

      JC must have eaten something that didn’t agree with him because there’ not a single thing among the 8 Principles that would make any thinking person vomit

      Pay no attention to his questions about “wealthy”, “fair” and “bleeding dry” either. Anyone who mentions “communism” in connection with the * Priciples can’t be serious.
      He’s just kidding with you.

      • JC

        Well that’s all true Right Brain…as long as you can completely ignore basic morality.
        The link is completely based on theft and socialist ideology. And like all good left wingers…you completely avoid valid questions.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I would be more than glad to deal with any “valid questions” that you may pose here. Unfortunately, you didn’t pose any VALID questions, any more than you made a VALID comment about global warming elsewhere in the thread.

        Like all good right wing-nutters, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You “preach” about “basic morality” at the same time that you spout the same old and tired and biased talking points about “theft” and “socialist ideology”. It’s dishonest and lazy to say what you said rather than address what the 8 Principles tell us—isn’t that a violation of “basic morality’ to do so?. Hypocrite.

      • JC

        I see you’ve ramped up the rhetoric…WHO ARE “THE RICH” exactly?
        And who will tou rob once they’ve been bled dry…what’s the LONG TERM plan?

        Not valid questions?…bite me Commie boy. :)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Karolyn, I still think he’s kidding us all.

        “…bite me Commie boy.” ?
        AS IN “BITE ME, COMMIE BOY”?
        And with a SMILEY face?

        Lord love a duck.

        Still no valid questions to answer..

      • JC

        Define who “the rich” are…
        You refuse to even try because you don’t have an answer.
        So I guess we must assume that anyone with “more than you” must be “the rich”
        and must be dragged down to your level…”communism” in a nut shell moron.

  • http://www.facebook.com/CaptainPhoto51 Theo Miller

    Well, personally, I think it very foolish to climb in bed with the devil in the very first place!

  • http://www.facebook.com/CaptainPhoto51 Theo Miller

    @RBT, global warming is Al Gore’s mythological fantasy! Supposedly those in the know, say that a rise and fall of global temp is normal.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Would that it was that simple, Theo. “Those in the know” are quite sure that AGW is occurring, and it’s only “supposedly” in the minds of the small (and ever shrinking group known as the “deniers” and “skeptics”).

      You obviously haven’t studied the topic much. Look on the PLD archives for the “Obama Care, Obama Green” article. If you look for facts rather than horsepucky in that article, you’ll learn a few things.

    • JC

      It is normal and has been for millions and millions of years. Only the very stupid and impressionable can believe anything the Reverend Gore and his Church of Disaster have to say.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Only the very stupid and impressionable deny the truth of AGW and say it is “normal”.

        “Reverend Gore” is now a very small preacher in the “church”. We thank him for being one of the earliest voices speaking out on the topic and for his willingness to serve as a “lightning rod” since, but the vast majority of climate scientists have taken up the battle for him and he is now on the sidelines watching and cheering them on.

        I wish you would tell us what you think “is normal and has been for millions and millions of years”. AGW is closely linked to the industrial age and the massive use of fossil fuels that made it possible. The campfires of the humans of “millions of years” ago may have been “normal”, but they didn’t produce global warming.

      • JC

        I see you’ve bought into “the show” put on by the Rev.
        Big pictures and panoramic sights…and no science.
        As I said, stupid and impressionable…and I might add incapable of critical thinking.
        Go Sheep GO! LOL

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JC says: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF ANY VALUE
        December 4, 2012 at 9:51 am

        SO I WON’T WASTE TIME REPLYING RBT

      • JC

        “Then along came Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. After some hen’s-teeth pulling to get Prof. Mann to release his raw data, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick found that 105 of 112 data sets he had used were incomplete, flawed or incorrect.”

        ICSC COUNTERS AL GORE’S “24 HOURS OF BUNK” :
        http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

      • JC

        Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies:

        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/29/413961/panic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/?mobile=nc

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Monsanto, Codex Alimentarius and “The Seeds of Deception”.

    Riveting lecture…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7q3-0E6XGA

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Don’t get on my case for not listening to the whole thing but Monday Night Football is on. I listened to enough to hear some of the same arguments that have been with us for a long time. The science of GMO basically follows the same rules that breeders have followed ever since man first domesticated plants and animals many millenia ago. GM just speeds up the process by using modern technology and extends it by “mixing” genes from widely separated species.

      There have been no proven bad effects from GMO to date, and the “green revolution” rice has been with us for what?—-near 40 years? And all the “breeding” that man has done ther old way before GMO hasn’t created any monsters either. The “laws of nature” just don’t allow it. When eaten, GMO food disassembles into its basic components and the “weird genes” don’t enter the body of the “eater” as such, and even if they did, a spider gene for instance, it can’t find it’s way to every cell in the body, couldn’t replicate itself if it did, and has no way to incorporate itself into the cell’s or total organism’s biology.

      My major beef with the GMO folks is the way the corporations are once again privatizing gain and socializing whatever minimal risk may be there, which is not so much in making people sick directly, as it is in denying the benefits to all in the name of corporate profits.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: Don’t get on my case for not listening to the whole thing but Monday Night Football is on. I listened to enough to hear some of the same arguments that have been with us for a long time. The science of GMO basically follows the same rules that breeders have followed ever since man first domesticated plants and animals many millenia ago. GM just speeds up the process by using modern technology and extends it by “mixing” genes from widely separated species.

        You raised a crucial question? Is genetic-engineering a variety of breeding? An affirmative answer means that it would not be justified to treat GE-foods differently from most other foods. The bio-technology industry maintains that genetic-engineering is a kind of breeding. However, i maintain the position that they expose people to unnecessary risks because GE foods may contain harmful substances that may be difficult to detect. Why? For starters, breeding never introduces genes that are foreign to the species. Foreign genes may have unexpected and potentially dangerous effects when placed in a genetic environment that is different from what is natural for them. Breeding doe not involve any artificial manipulation of the genes. The only “manipulation” is that certain parents are selected for mating. The mating occurs naturally, which means a natural combination of the hereditary substance of the father and mother. So the argument of biotech proponents that we have been manipulating genes for ages in breeding is seriously misleading. And lastly, In GE, but never in breeding, there occurs an artifcial insertion of a gene, which means a disruption of the orderly sequence of instructions in the hereditary substance. This always results in a loss, to a lesser or greater degree, of the tight genetic control and balanced functioning which is retained through conventional cross breeding. With GE there may occur an unpredictable creation of new molecules that may be toxic, allergenic or may disturb the metabolism of the cell so as to create unexpected toxic or allergenic molecules .

        RBT: There have been no proven bad effects from GMO to date, and the “green revolution” rice has been with us for what?—-near 40 years?

        Ask yourself, if there were such data proving ill-effects, and considering the damage to the industry as a result; would the findings be published or suppressed? And if published, would the health-risks be minimized?

        RBT: And all the “breeding” that man has done ther old way before GMO hasn’t created any monsters either. The “laws of nature” just don’t allow it. When eaten, GMO food disassembles into its basic components and the “weird genes” don’t enter the body of the “eater” as such, and even if they did, a spider gene for instance, it can’t find it’s way to every cell in the body, couldn’t replicate itself if it did, and has no way to incorporate itself into the cell’s or total organism’s biology.

        Please refer to my first response.

        RBT: My major beef with the GMO folks is the way the corporations are once again privatizing gain and socializing whatever minimal risk may be there, which is not so much in making people sick directly, as it is in denying the benefits to all in the name of corporate profits.

        The assumption that they conspire to make people sick directly, is impossible to prove, naturally. However, i’m convinced that risk-factors do exist. One thing we can both agree on, “the monopoly”!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY: “However, i maintain the position that they expose people to unnecessary risks because GE foods may contain harmful substances that may be difficult to detect”.

        MAY is the key word there. GE foods most likely do contain “harmful substances”, as do all our foods—-preservatives, colorants, texturizers, chemicals leaching out of can liners and packaging, etc—all with provable bad consequences.. Research to date shows no harmful substances directly attributable to GE. I do recall reading somewhere that some GE has “backfired” and produced foods with high concentrations of some “normal” things that would be harmful in big doses. Fortunately, they test the foods to rule this out and some of the “mistakes” made the food look and taste bad so it was unmarketable anyway.

        JAY: “For starters, breeding never introduces genes that are foreign to the species. Foreign genes may have unexpected and potentially dangerous effects when placed in a genetic environment that is different from what is natural for them”.

        Perhaps, but not proven yet. It is more likely that the “unexpected and potentially dangerous effects” will be the death of the receiving organism. Problem solved.

        JAY: “So the argument of biotech proponents that we have been manipulating genes for ages in breeding is seriously misleading.”

        Not so, not even misleading, never mind seriously. It is just a recognition of something that we have done to our great benefit for 10,000 years.

        JAY “And lastly, In GE, but never in breeding, there occurs an artificial insertion of a gene, which means a disruption of the orderly sequence of instructions in the hereditary substance. This always results in a loss, to a lesser or greater degree, of the tight genetic control and balanced functioning which is retained through conventional cross breeding”.

        True to a very small degree, but way overstated. “Disruption” is too strong a word—”change” is better. And it does not “always result in a LOSS”, but merely a small addition to the equation of “control and balance”. Any real “disruption” results in non-viability of the GMO and thereby solves the problem. Just as if (forgive me for this analogy) a farmer has his randy barnyard dog try to impregnate one of his hens—if the chicken survives the event and dog sperm meets single-cell chicken egg, it will never progress to the point that your omelet will wag its tail.

        JAY: “With GE there may occur an unpredictable creation of new molecules that may be toxic, allergenic or may disturb the metabolism of the cell so as to create unexpected toxic or allergenic molecules “.

        Yes, and as I’ve stated elsewhere, the organism will be nonviable and therefore will never reach the point where it can be a threat to any other living thing.

        RBT: “There have been no proven bad effects from GMO to date, and the “green revolution” rice has been with us for what?—-near 40 years?”
        JAY: “Ask yourself, if there were such data proving ill-effects, and considering the damage to the industry as a result; would the findings be published or suppressed? And if published, would the health-risks be minimized?

        You are 100% correct in suggesting that the corporate oligarchy and the plutocracy would lie to us to protect their own interests. Look at the tobacco and asbestos issues for proof of that. One can only hope that the “non-owned” scientists will blow the whistle on them here also. Just as the “non-owned” scientists who are convinced of the truth of AGW work to expose the fallacies put forth by the scientists who are owned by the fossil fuel interests.

        RBT: “And all the “breeding” that man has done the old way before GMO hasn’t created any monsters either. The “laws of nature” just don’t allow it. When eaten, GMO food disassembles into its basic components and the “weird genes” don’t enter the body of the “eater” as such, and even if they did, a spider gene for instance, it can’t find it’s way to every cell in the body, couldn’t replicate itself if it did, and has no way to incorporate itself into the cell’s or total organism’s biology.”

        JAY: “Please refer to my first response.”

        Please refer to what I said directly above and to other statements in the body of my comments.

        JAY: “The assumption that they conspire to make people sick directly, is impossible to prove, naturally. However, i’m convinced that risk-factors do exist. One thing we can both agree on, “the monopoly”!”

        I’m not convinced that there is more than a very small chance of GE foods and GMO making people or the biosphere “sick”. I have enough of a background in biology and have studied the issue enough to be satisfied in reaching that conclusion. I am much more concerned about AGW. I think that “they” are most definitely capable of conspiring to maximize their gain and socialize the risks. They would walk that fine line if they could minimize the bad publicity that would result from just a few deaths caused by GE while at the same time getting rich. Just like the drug companies—make a bundle off drugs that “only” kill a few—-if you rapidly read off a list of serious side effects or put them on the bottom of the screen in small print on your TV ads, you’re “covered”.

  • Joe America

    Codex Alimentarius Commission is an organization owned and operated by Dupont, Montanto and all the other big food/seed corporations around the world. The goal is to prevent you from being able to grow your own food, in your own back yard. This is a part of the NWO. If you control all the food, you control the people. The ruse of Codex Alimentarius is that they are “protecting the public”. However, this isn’t the case. It’s all about control over your access to food, making sure that all control of that food is under their jurisdiction. Although a private organization, it’s rules are being adopted by the FDA the World Health Organization, The World Trade Organization, The United Nations, etc. In other words, it’s owned and directed by the New World Order. Wikipedia makes it sound benevolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius However, here’s a different slant: http://theintelhub.com/2010/07/17/codex-alimentarius-and-the-new-world-order/

    Organic food distributors have actually had cops run into their stores, with guns pulled:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27EFldZ17k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvp3Fxi7Uo

    People were shocked and disturbed by what you see in the video, so much so that it’s caused the CAC movement to back up, but this is only going to last for awhile. They will keep pushing until they control every scrap of food you eat.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      But is the monopoly the only thing they covet, Joe. What is your take on the integrity, or nutritional-value or lack thereof, in the foods they produce?

    • http://www.facebook.com/blais.vanessa Vanessa Blais

      And it’s the middle class ‘suburbanites’ that voted in the zoning laws that prevent homeowners from having their own gardens in protection of their precious ‘property’ values, because ‘home equity’ was the only asset they had that was under their own control and not subject to the whims of the markets where their 401K’s lived, and was someone else’s risk. The middle class suburbanite yuppies created this problem by voting at local levels to supress anything that they thought would diminish the property on their McMansions and and clash with their over financed Cadillac Escalades and Volvo SUV’s in their driveways. They rely on the wealthy to take all the ‘risk’ to create businesses that provide them with ‘jobs,’ and benefits, and sit upon a sanctimonious high horse with regards to their ‘right’ to cast aspersions on the poor, and treat the poor as convicted felons without rights as they shout, “not on my tax dollars.” The problem is not the wealthy. The problem is the middle class. They wealthy take all the risks, that start the industries which create their ‘jobs,’ while they take no risks for the betterment of anyone but themselves, and whine when they’re punished for being the most self-involved, self-absorbed, self-interested class among us, with the highest tax brackes.

      For the record,I am poor. We are a one, low-income (federal minimum wage) household of 2 parents and 2 children. We grow our own food, most likely against our county codes, and we supplement income with other opportunities that we find by paying attention to what’s going on around us, and fufilling whatever needs people have, that we can.

      The middle class wants to put in their 40 hours, make $250K a year, pay the least amount of taxes because they aren’t ‘wealthy’ but make no investments into businesses that create jobs, or passive income streams that would protect them from being knocked off their high horses and down here into the gutter with us poor folks, when they lose their yuppie jobs. They are the biggest risk to everyone else. Their demands for high salaries, with raises every year, over financed homes that will go into foreclosure when they lose their jobs, because they’re ‘savings’ is the equity in their homes, with their 401K that their employer matched their investments on and is 100% reliant on the risk and responsibility of ‘others’ to ‘produce.’

      It’s time for the middle class to stop feeling ‘entitled’ to have everything, ‘secure jobs,’ retirment plans, and a condescending attitude towards the poor, in return for taking none of the risks that the wealthy take to create those jobs and retirement plans, and stop turning their noses down at the poor.

      By now, you have most likely dedeuced that my own family was once in the ‘upper middle class’ category of suburbanite yuppies, and it all came crashing down on us. That’s what it took for me to realize the error in my ways of ‘Darwinian Thinking.’ I do believe the wealthy should pay more taxes, but not because I’m under some Grand Illusion that it will mean more money for ‘lazy, welfare families,’ because it won’t. It WILL, however, curtail their stranglehold on all investment opportunities, leaving more investment opportunities open to Americans who have opened their eyes and finally realized the only way is to make your own investments, and not rely on someone else’s risk, to create for a ‘job,’ which will one day become ‘obsolote,’ but because we don’t ‘put Americans out of work,’ that business eventually goes bankrupt for the sake of providing someone with a ‘job,’ and no responsibility for making their own investments into their financial security.

  • Joe America

    Take a look at Senate Bill S510, which makes it illegal to grow, shar, trade or sell home grown food:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOups0dfdwM

  • Bachelor with Sense

    The Easiest FIX to this Problem is to Plant what is called HERITAGE SEED. That is seed that has been grown year-to-year for thousands of years. IT belongs to God!! Tell Monsanto AND DuPont to go where they belong (H E Double Hockey Sticks).

  • Pingback: EU Moves To Control All Plants : Personal Liberty Digest™

  • Pingback: EU Moves To Control All Plants | Flyover-Press.com

  • Pingback: EU Moves To Control All Plants | Land & Livestock International, Inc.

  • Pingback: EU Moves To Control All Plants | Wichita Observer

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.