Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

So you are against this ruling?

Here's what I don't support.

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections

What's unique about the allegations is that Azano's money was funneled through a "Super PAC," a political fundraising vehicle born out of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. The ruling paved the way for Super PACs to spend unlimited sums of money for candidates with only limited reporting requirements. Although Super PACs have been linked to other campaign finance abuses, a foreign national has never been accused of using one to hide his idenity. "We are not aware of another example of a similar case," Peter Carr, a public relations officer at the Justice Department, told FP. "Super PACs are a new vehicle for political spending."

For some critics of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the San Diego case validates warnings about foreign contributions previously dismissed by supporters of the landmark court case.

The controversy dates back to 2010, when President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to lament that Citizens United would "open the floodgates" for foreigners and special interest groups to "spend without limit in our elections."

And, as I said previously here, what the Koch network is doing here just got geo-political in a major way. But this requires us to have a firm grasp on foreign policy in it's entirety. Not what we'd like to just cherrypick in order to hurry up and just get elected.
 
Last edited:
Four hundred million would buy you a lot of MRE's,I'll give you that.Maybe even money left over for a water purifier and a .22 rifle and maybe even a few silver American Eagles.
It would be money better spent than throwing it down the rabbit hole of any politician. Much better ROI.
 
Here's what I don't support.

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections



And, as I said previously here, what the Koch network is doing here just got geo-political in a major way. But this requires us to have a firm grasp on foreign policy in it's entirety. Not what we'd like to just cherrypick in order to hurry up and just get elected.

That was just as illegal before Citizens United as it is now.He broke the law now,he would have broken the law in 2009.
 
That was just as illegal before Citizens United as it is now.He broke the law now,he would have broken the law in 2009.

He's just the one who got caught. The point is that the only true way to scrutinize who speaks for whom in the wonderful world of political representation is through transparency. So then we follow the money.
 
He's just the one who got caught. The point is that the only true way to scrutinize who speaks for whom in the wonderful world of political representation is through transparency. So then we follow the money.

If there was transparency they couldn't do their backroom deals at the billionaires parties and get special favors and tribute. There would be no incentive to be in congress then.
 
If there was transparency they couldn't do their backroom deals at the billionaires parties and get special favors and tribute. There would be no incentive to be in congress then.

Yes. Well...we're going to kick the door down to that back room. When a human being isn't entitled to know what they are putting into their bodies because the industries in the business of it get together and buy off some politicians to back them up on it and produce laws to enforce it there must be some accountability from these so called representatives of the people. When the narrative continues to be consumers, consumers, consumers (because they are scared to death to discuss it in terms of human health since they'd have to provide a position on the science itself which would demonstrate their competency regarding the issue or lack thereof) it's apparent that they care very little for the human aspect of it. This practice is further compounded by the fact that they continue to speak for the entity instead of the person in political terms relative only to consumer science (which is rigged anyhow). Again, this is snubbing their noses toward basic human rights when they go out of their way to support the notion that these entities can write the laws that enforce the idea that their growth (which absolutely depends upon an uninformed majority) trumps survival of the natural citizen and his ability to ensure that survival by having the means to make an informed decision on what he puts into his body.

I was just reading another thread where Charles Koch was saying that he's against this practice. But yet here we are. Cracks me up.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Well...we're going to kick the door down to that back room. When a human being isn't entitled to know what they are putting into their bodies because the industries in the business of it get together and buy off some politicians to back them up on it and produce laws to enforce it there must be some accountability from these so called representatives of the people. When the narrative continues to be consumers, consumers, consumers (because they are scared to death to discuss it in terms of human health since they'd have to provide a position on the science itself which would demonstrate their competency regarding the issue or lack thereof) it's apparent that they care very little for the human aspect of it. This practice is further compounded by the fact that they continue to speak for the entity instead of the person in political terms relative only to consumer science (which is rigged anyhow). Again, this is snubbing their noses toward basic human rights when they go out of their way to support the notion that these entities can write the laws that enforce the idea that their growth (which absolutely depends upon an uninformed majority) trumps survival of the natural citizen and his ability to ensure that survival by having the means to make an informed decision on what he puts into his body.

I was just reading another thread where Charles Koch was saying that he's against this practice. But yet here we are. Cracks me up.


Above I made reference to that with my sarcastic remark of Charles Koch saying he is against cronyism. It must be hard to admit he is against himself. These guys are schizophrenic.
 
Relevant reading...

Russia will not import GMO products - PM Medvedev - this is huge, btw.

Russia will not import GMO products, the country’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, adding that the nation has enough space and resources to produce organic food.

Moscow has no reason to encourage the production of genetically modified products or import them into the country, Medvedev told a congress of deputies from rural settlements on Saturday.

“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food,” he said.


Aside...

Vladimir Putin Says Russia Must Protect its Citizens from GMOs, Stand Against WTO

We need to properly construct our work so that it is not contrary to our obligations under the WTO. But even with this in mind, we nevertheless have legitimate methods and instruments to protect our own market, and above all citizens.”


The unfortunate part of what Medvedev is saying about Americans eating this stuff "if they like" it is that Americans have no real choice when our particular politicians...so called representatives, team up with the very biotech companies and PAC's that are within the same political networks, like Koch Industries (who are also in the business) and write laws among themselves that specifically say it's none of the darn business of we the people what we are eating. And we have some real gems around here calling this corporate tyranny "liberty" of all things. I mean, it's unbelievable. It's straight fascism and a rather in your face brand of literally violating basic human rights.
 
Last edited:
Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas, has numerous ties to Charles and David Koch, heads of the formidable multinational corporation Koch Industries.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/21/119973/koch-mike-pompeo/

In his initial run for Congress in 2010, Pompeo received more money from the Kochs than any other politician. Once in the House, the congressman introduced bills sympathetic to Koch Industries, The Washington Post reported.

Koch Industries’ subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, is also a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“GMA’s selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how extreme the proposal really is,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety. “Selecting Pompeo creates an unholy alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries, two of the most reviled corporations in America.”

The following bold type, although an outlier in scope, is also very important to know given what we see from the growing list of healthy GMO free nations who we'll absolutely see become direct competitors with the western biotech/agribusiness industry and others like Koch Industries whom these politicians speak for and allow to dictate dangerous legislation like this which is against the interests of health and basic human rights of the people they are supposed to actually be representing in the first place. - Pompeo developed much of his wealth from a firm he founded, Thayer Aerospace, which he ran with investment funds from Koch Industries.

The reason that this is important goes back to what I was saying about international finance clearing (which happens in "space"
now...not via the strongest navy as was the historic model in years past) in some other threads and partnered with the fact that these industries also lobby for food/agribusiness to be a matter of "national security" in order to secure their grasp on the American political and legal system relative to their business interests while also monitoring the competition. You see? But that's for another day...soon. Also...when we hear and/or are directed to watch politicians who operate from within the Koch network discuss such things as "spying" we need to take what they choose to focus on in that area with a grain of salt and maybe think a little harder about what they aren't talking about. And why.

It is relevant to note that some of the other political mouthpieces of these industries and the neocon oligarchs within the GOP for sanctions on Russia have quieted down regarding those sanctions as a result of the shift in international finance clearing infrastructure from both them and other nations. Obviously they know what is coming down the "pipe", so to speak, and are scrambling to pull their feet from their mouths. I don't think the timing of this corporate legislation regarding food from these particular entities is ironic at all because it's an aspect of the rogue foreign policy that we have historically seen from the neocon element of western oligarchs in a major way and runs abreast with these counter measures that we are seeing from Russia and others in that particular industry aside from gas/oil.

Although one wouldn't know it to listen to some of these politicians discuss foreign policy and things like intelligence spying in the shallow way that they do.
 
Last edited:
He's just the one who got caught. The point is that the only true way to scrutinize who speaks for whom in the wonderful world of political representation is through transparency. So then we follow the money.

Perfect. So then large groups of stupid angry liberal people can harass and bully people until they live in absolute fear of donating.

For me, the problem with this line of thinking is that is assumes that it is the donations that are to blame for corrupting poor innocent politicians. It's like insisting that the problems with America are the corporations, and not the government.


I don't think Rand Paul, Thomas Massie and Justin Amash are corrupt, and they all got money from organizations affiliated with the Koch Brothers. So that means that the Koch Brothers support candidates that we support. I think that's a wonderful thing.
 
I don't think Rand Paul, Thomas Massie and Justin Amash are corrupt, and they all got money from organizations affiliated with the Koch Brothers. So that means that the Koch Brothers support candidates that we support. I think that's a wonderful thing.

Perhaps they do. Of course, out in the wild that is the www people who read this may not accept that. Koch network, as the article states, is merging with Monsanto and soliciting the services of a congressman...a so called elected representative of the people...to enforce industry backed legislation that both infringes as well as supresses states rights. Not only that but it's a fundamental violation of human rights to force human beings to consume the genetic concoctions of these same industries by voiding the citizens means of knowing or power to know. Do you think that the majority of people who actively oppose this tyranny are going to just all of a sudden be OK with it, start eating GMO and will seek out these representatives because the Koch network...the very network who are partnering with the industry and attempting to infringe upon these rights by trying to get this tyrannical legislation passed happened to funnel over some loot to Massie, Paul and Amash? I'd probably say that they'd avoid them like the plague and throw them into the mix with the Koch's and the Monsanto's of the world. After all. The Koch network padded Congressman Pompeo's pockets too. And look what that got the people. This is horrendous legislation. It's treason.

Of course, there's alway's the possibility that these fine defenders of liberty for the people they were elected to represent that you mention would provide a position on the intricates of the science beyond that of the consumption/industry model for those people who sent them to office and maybe support the notion that it's a pretty good idea to not let industry merge with their fellow congressmen and infringe upon states rights or violate basic human rights via loaded legislation and from within their own processes for representation, no less. I'd like to hear from Massie in particular since he sits on both the the Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation but, you know...I ain't holding my breath. He's got a lot to say about agriculture when it comes to his hemp legislation and and how it would benefit his own business and others so unless he's planning on lobbying for GMO hemp I don't see why he's ignoring the issue. But If we haven't heard a position on it from them yet through all of the blowback we are seeing not only here in the states but all over the world then we probably won't. We have crickets chirping over here. Which is unfortunate. We're such a small community here. And the www is a very big place. As I was telling you over in the other thread, about that one article that I shared regarding some nations abroad banning the imports of GMO that had over a hundred responses in a few hours. Now the media here won't touch it with a ten foot pole. And so it is expected that concerned citizens seek a platform where the issue is front and center and among a much larger demographic of people who hold similar positions on it where they may synergize in some way. And, again, we'll see record numbers of voters, I think, during the coming cycle.
 
Last edited:
Have mixed feelings on this; on one hand, I'm kinda glad that it's actually a market oriented law.

On the other, it's the Federal government grabbing more power.

Good outcome, bad precedent (though that precedent has already been established hundreds of times...sadly *sigh*).
 
So you think that Rand Paul and Justin Amash are neo-cons because they took Koch money? That's what you said.

No, but their largest donors will be certain to take care in dangling their trout-line in front of their faces whenever they should want something, causally warning them that come next election they might just redirect their casts into the other side of the pond.

Replace the word Koch with Soros, would you still be making these same arguments?
 
Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – Report

The first-ever scientific study that analyzes whether the US is a democracy, rather than an oligarchy, found the majority of the American public has a "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" compared to the wealthy.

The study, due out in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, sets out to answer elusive questions about who really rules in the United States. The researchers measured key variables for 1,779 policy issues within a single statistical model in an unprecedented attempt "to test these contrasting theoretical predictions" – i.e. whether the US sets policy democratically or the process is dominated by economic elites, or some combination of both.

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,"the researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University wrote.

While "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association," the authors say the data implicate "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

The authors of "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" say that even as their model tilts heavily toward indications that the US is, in fact, run by the most wealthy and powerful, it actually doesn’t go far enough in describing the stranglehold connected elites have on the policymaking process.

Continued... Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – Report

The study, due out in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
 
Have mixed feelings on this; on one hand, I'm kinda glad that it's actually a market oriented law.

Technically, what is happening here is that these industries and politically active networks like Koch Industries are manipulating political infrastructure to protect themselves from the free market. There is no other way to say it. It's exactly what they are doing here. If people aren't of the means to know what it is that they are consuming into their bodies because these industries have got together with members of congress to specifically void the states right to label genetically modified food stuff via legislation that is derived from their own pen then there is no platform for choice in any way for the natural citizen to make a choice. This is both treason and corruption on the part of the congressman and certainly corruption on the part of the industry.

And it is absolutely disfranchisement of states rights.
 
Last edited:
It looks like Congressman Mike Pompeo is getting hammered pretty bad by the people over on his facebook page...the real ones, that is. Seems to be very busy censoring literally thousands of comments but it's futile just because of the broad range of blowback. He seems to be directing his minions to scripted industry propaganda to post all over the web. He's getting called out on it too. It's kind of funny. What a piece of corrupt treasonous slime. Kansas would do well to recall this criminal. I don't think I recall ever seeing so much effort into deleting and blocking comments on a facebook page though.


Here's the latest Industry/investor propaganda being linked from Congressman Mike Pompeo's facebook... most of which has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be just that...industry/investor propaganda. Can't believe they have a scripted narrative to pass around all over the web. It's kind of comical.
Please take immediate action and post support on Congressman Pompeo's Facebook and Twitter for his leadership on the GMO issue. Here are the links for quick reference:

Examples for constituents to post:

  • As a farmer/wheat grower/food professional, @RepMikePompeo thank you for your thoughtful position on GMO issues. They are safe and essential to my business and livelihood.

  • GMO crops can make a successful harvest for many small farmers. @RepMikePompeo, thanks for listening to farmers like me.

  • The use of genetically modified ingredients is not only safe for people and our planet, but also has a number of important benefits. Thank you @RepMikePompeo

  • GMO crops help feed the world. Thank you @RepMikePompeo for helping to feed the hungry around the globe.

  • I stand with @RepMikePompeo for supporting GMO crops. #GMOs help feed the world and keep food affordable.

  • Less money spent on food means more money for clothing, shelter, and education. Thanks @RepMikePompeo for supporting GMOs!

  • State-based #GMO labeling laws are misleading & costly to farmers like me. I stand with @RepMikePompeo for proposing a federal standard.

  • #GMOs use less water & pesticides, reduce crop prices by 15-30%. Proud to support @RepMikePompeo for his work on the issue! #StandWithPompeo

I don't know. I think I'm going to take a vacation from RPF and focus on these issues full force in other areas of the web. Probably a bit pointless to continue with the issue here. Maybe best to help out where it's needed most. Seems like a lot of the regular folks out n the wild who are fighting the good fight are political amateurs. Persistent, yes..but amateurs none the less.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top