Update: Anti-GMO Meeting this Wednesday (see below); Legal Notice - to the U.S. President, et. als. Affecting All Lands in the Hawaiian Islands - NO GMO'S, etc.
Views: 415
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Stop Following – Don't email me when people reply
Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by on
- Posted previously:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Views: 34Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by on
Organic v. Monsanto
More than 270,000 organic farmers are taking on corporate agriculture giant Monsanto in a lawsuit filed March 30. Led by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the family farmers are fighting for the right to keep a portion of the world food supply organic—and preemptively protecting themselves from accusations of stealing genetically modified seeds that drift on to their pristine crop fields.Consumers are powerful. For more than a decade, a cultural shift has seen shoppers renounce the faster-fatter-bigger-cheaper mindset of factory farms, exposéd in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. From heirloom tomatoes to heritage chickens, we want our food slow, sustainable, and local—healthy for the earth, healthy for animals, and healthy for our bodies.But with patented seeds infiltrating the environment so fully, organic itself is at risk. Monsanto’s widely used Genuity® Roundup Ready® canola seed has already turned heirloom canola oil into an extinct species. The suing farmers are seeking to prevent similar contamination of organic corn, soybeans, and a host of other crops. What’s more, they’re seeking to prevent Monsanto from accusing them of unlawfully using the very seeds they’re trying to avoid.“It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement,” says Public Patent Foundation director Dan Ravicher in a Cornucopia Institute article about the farmers’ lawsuit (May 30, 2011), “but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement.”Even as the megacorporation enjoys soaring stock, the U.S. justice department continues to look into allegations of its fraudulent antitrust practices (The Street, June 29, 2011):It’s a wide net Monsanto has cast over the agricultural landscape. As Ravicher points out, “it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply.”Imagine a world devoid of naturally vigorous traditional crops and controlled by a single business with a appetite for intellectual property. Did anyone else feel a cold wind pass through them? Now imagine a world where thousands of family farmers fight the good fight to continue giving consumers a choice in their food—and win.August 13, 2011 Update from OSGATAFarmers Defend Right to Protect Themselves From Monsanto PatentsOrganizations File Amici to Defend Plaintiffs’ Right to Trial and Respond to Monsanto’s Attempt to Dismiss Case
New York – August 11, 2011 – The 83 family farmers, small and family owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed filed papers in federal court today defending their right to seek legal protection from the threat of being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) represents the plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association(OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York. Today’s filings respond to a motion filed by Monsanto in mid-July to have the case dismissed. In support of the plantiffs’ right to bring the case, 12 agricultural organizations also filed a friend-of-the-court amici brief.“Rather than give a straight forward answer on whether they would sue our clients for patent infringement if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, Monsanto has instead chosen to try to deny our clients the right to receive legal protection from the courts,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Today’s filings include sworn statements by several of the plaintiffs themselves explaining to the court how the risk of contamination by transgenic seed is real and why they cannot trust Monsanto to not use an occurrence of contamination as a basis to accuse them of patent infringement.”It is now virtually impossible for a U.S. farmer to grow crops of their choosing (corn, soybeans, canola, etc.) and remain GMO-free because of the numerous biological and human means by which seeds can spread. “Given the difficulties in minimizing GM contamination farmers must make numerous decisions about which steps are worthwhile for them and which steps are not. They are not able to make these decisions based on their own and their customers‘ interests, but must instead make these decisions with the threat of litigation from a giant corporation looming over their head,” Spiegel writes in the amici brief. “The constant threat of a patent infringement suit by Monsanto creates significant, unquantifiable costs for Plaintiff farmers and similarly situated farmers.” The plaintiffs can do everything possible to maintain non-contaminated seeds, and will very likely still become contaminated, and be placed under the threat of a lawsuit. As Monsanto’s domination of the seed industry grows, and the winds continue to disperse pollen from their GMO laced crops, the likelihood of contamination and lawsuits only increases.Monsanto has stated that they would not sue farmers who were “inadvertently” contaminated or farmers whose crops contain “trace amounts” of GMO, however they have refused to sign a simple covenant not to sue, that would bring an effective end to the lawsuit.Monsanto’s track record makes it clear that Monsanto intends to continue threatening and harassing farmers. “Monsanto has undertaken one of the most aggressive patent assertion campaigns in history,” wrote Ravicher. Monsanto admits to filing 128 lawsuits against farmers from 1997-2010, settling out of court with 700 others for an undisclosed amount. As Spiegel writes, “The passage of time and natural biological processes will inevitably lead to higher contamination levels, at which point Monsanto will have created a target-rich environment for its patent enforcement activities.”Plaintiffs Bryce Stephens, who farms in Kansas and serves as vice president of OSGATA, Frederick Kirschenmann, who farms in North Dakota, C.R. Lawn, who is founder and co-owner of Fedco Seeds in Maine, Don Patterson of Virginia and Chuck Noble, who farms in South Dakota, each submitted declarations to the court describing their personal experiences with the risk of contamination by genetically modified seed and why those experiences have forced them to bring the current suit. As summarized by the accompanying brief filed by PUBPAT on the plaintiffs’ behalf, “Monsanto’s acts of widespread patent assertion and the plaintiffs’ ever growing risk of contamination create a real, immediate and substantial dispute between them.”In their brief, the amici describe some of the harmful effects of genetically modified seed and how easily GMOs can contaminate an organic or conventional farmer’s land. The organizations filing the amici brief were Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Ecological Farmers of Ontario, Fair Food Matters, International Organic Inspectors Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environment Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Association, Organic Council of Ontario, Slow Food USA, and Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.The brief filed by the plaintiffs in opposition to Monsanto’s motion to dismiss is available here.The amici brief in support of the plaintiffs is available here.Update via ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ORGANIZATION
Click here to Support the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Organization***************************
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Jesse,You’re right on target and it’s starting to happen. Here’s a recent link on just what you suggested.
Shabba
So they finally got some nuts. It took long enough.- I am so happy to hear that the family farmers are fighting back! It is scary to think that there’s a possibility of heirloom seeds disappearing and even scarier to think that a corporation could potentially control the food supply. I buy organic as much as I can and I try to grow my own vegetables as well. There is a very good documentary on the same topic called The Future of Food (thefutureoffood.com) if anyone wants to check it out, they go into explaining how GM seeds come to be and how the use of pesticides have increased dramatically in the recent years, it’s definitely worth watching.
- Thank you, Cindy. Great info and here’s the clickable link to the movie:
http://www.futureoffood.com
- It’s easy, just have your armed ranch hands walk the property line and let the monsanto come tank your crops…
whatev
Except that Monsanto purchased the infamous Blackwater mercenary group through a subsidiary of the company. What would Monsanto need with it’s own private army?
- Permalink Reply by on
- subsidiary of the company. What would Monsanto need with it’s own private army?
- this actually is a really big deal – they are selling seedless growing plants in India that are putting farms out of business with an unsustainable crop – look into this, having just a free breeds of each plant is cause for disaster – ever heard of the lumpar potato…?
- meh, thank you. The farming situation in India is going through some very tough times. Here are a couple of recent articles:
VonB
About time. Down with Monsanto and their poison and greed.murli
What about the farmers that Monsanto has already sued and put out of business? I would really love to see them reimbursed!ja
and monsanto would solve out as always, giving some little money (compared to its benefits) to the court members or just sometimes to the growers/farmers? is that how we solve unfair and unethical behaviour?
i dont like.
is that also the democracy that we would like to have? or is just oligarchy of really few people gettin richer and richer just because politics have to act on behalf of the financial market?
And as i dont want that…. letś change it~!!Tamara
Very exciting, but just wondering where the “270,000 organic farmers” figure comes from. I am seeing figures in cross-referenced articles between 60 and 85 farmers involved in the March 2011 filing…. Thanks!- Hi Tamara, the 270,000 farmers are all members of the plaintiff organizations. Here are some additional details:
- Monsanto is beyond evil. I hope the 270,000 get a million a piece. Taking Monsanto apart might be the best thing that ever happens to agriculture.
Hrisztosz Joresz
Organic food is our right! If Monsanto gets their way, what’s next …the air we breath will be owned by a multinational corporation?mark meyer
“It’s a matter of education. If people know about the benefits of organic food and the risks of non-organic and GMO food, they can make an informed choice. I choose organic food every chance I get”The fact is, you (we) are a minority in this country. Most people do not really care about these issues. What kind of seed is used? Get real! It has no immediate bearing on most people’s lives, thus it is irrelevant to them.What I’d like to know is what the heck ever happened to anti-trust laws and enforcement? Remember Standard Oil? Where are the court justices who will break up Monsanto?- Thank you, Mark. We’re with you on organics!There’s is a lot to be said for the influence our financial system has. Publicly traded corporations are ultimately controlled by Wall Street and the company stockholders.
Sam Perniskie
i am so rapt to see this occuring, i was very afriad after watching food inc, king corn, and other similar docos that the agricultural situation in america (dispite fantastic growth in orgainic and slow food movements) was in very dire straights indeed! awesome to see people standing up for what they believe in and fighting back!! good luck guys! what you do often flows on and affects the rest of the world, so i hope you win!
***************************************************************************************Monarch Butterflies: Latest Victims of GMO’s
The rampant planting of genetically modified seeds is threatening the survival of monarch butterflies, the orange and black speckled species common—and critical—to Midwest farmers, according to a new study published in the journal 
- Permalink Reply by on
4 Comments.
Paul Cherubini
Milkweed and monarchs continue to be abundant in the Roundup Ready crop growing areas. The crop margins / roadsides are not sprayed so there’s still a vast and stable supply of milkweed available for the monarchs.What other inland area of the USA, besides the GMO farmland of the upper midwest, are there monarchs clusters this big in numerous farm towns in the late summer?:
Bird Island, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g
Danube, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDxKwEgsjPc&NR=1
Gibbon, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCayVVKhlWM
Winthrop, Minnesota:aloha.
- Permalink Reply by on
Organic v. Monsanto
More than 270,000 organic farmers are taking on corporate agriculture giant Monsanto in a lawsuit filed March 30. Led by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the family farmers are fighting for the right to keep a portion of the world food supply organic—and preemptively protecting themselves from accusations of stealing genetically modified seeds that drift on to their pristine crop fields.Consumers are powerful. For more than a decade, a cultural shift has seen shoppers renounce the faster-fatter-bigger-cheaper mindset of factory farms, exposéd in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. From heirloom tomatoes to heritage chickens, we want our food slow, sustainable, and local—healthy for the earth, healthy for animals, and healthy for our bodies.But with patented seeds infiltrating the environment so fully, organic itself is at risk. Monsanto’s widely used Genuity® Roundup Ready® canola seed has already turned heirloom canola oil into an extinct species. The suing farmers are seeking to prevent similar contamination of organic corn, soybeans, and a host of other crops. What’s more, they’re seeking to prevent Monsanto from accusing them of unlawfully using the very seeds they’re trying to avoid.“It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement,” says Public Patent Foundation director Dan Ravicher in a Cornucopia Institute article about the farmers’ lawsuit (May 30, 2011), “but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement.”Even as the megacorporation enjoys soaring stock, the U.S. justice department continues to look into allegations of its fraudulent antitrust practices (The Street, June 29, 2011):It’s a wide net Monsanto has cast over the agricultural landscape. As Ravicher points out, “it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply.”Imagine a world devoid of naturally vigorous traditional crops and controlled by a single business with a appetite for intellectual property. Did anyone else feel a cold wind pass through them? Now imagine a world where thousands of family farmers fight the good fight to continue giving consumers a choice in their food—and win.August 13, 2011 Update from OSGATAFarmers Defend Right to Protect Themselves From Monsanto PatentsOrganizations File Amici to Defend Plaintiffs’ Right to Trial and Respond to Monsanto’s Attempt to Dismiss Case
New York – August 11, 2011 – The 83 family farmers, small and family owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed filed papers in federal court today defending their right to seek legal protection from the threat of being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) represents the plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association(OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York. Today’s filings respond to a motion filed by Monsanto in mid-July to have the case dismissed. In support of the plantiffs’ right to bring the case, 12 agricultural organizations also filed a friend-of-the-court amici brief.“Rather than give a straight forward answer on whether they would sue our clients for patent infringement if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, Monsanto has instead chosen to try to deny our clients the right to receive legal protection from the courts,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Today’s filings include sworn statements by several of the plaintiffs themselves explaining to the court how the risk of contamination by transgenic seed is real and why they cannot trust Monsanto to not use an occurrence of contamination as a basis to accuse them of patent infringement.”It is now virtually impossible for a U.S. farmer to grow crops of their choosing (corn, soybeans, canola, etc.) and remain GMO-free because of the numerous biological and human means by which seeds can spread. “Given the difficulties in minimizing GM contamination farmers must make numerous decisions about which steps are worthwhile for them and which steps are not. They are not able to make these decisions based on their own and their customers‘ interests, but must instead make these decisions with the threat of litigation from a giant corporation looming over their head,” Spiegel writes in the amici brief. “The constant threat of a patent infringement suit by Monsanto creates significant, unquantifiable costs for Plaintiff farmers and similarly situated farmers.” The plaintiffs can do everything possible to maintain non-contaminated seeds, and will very likely still become contaminated, and be placed under the threat of a lawsuit. As Monsanto’s domination of the seed industry grows, and the winds continue to disperse pollen from their GMO laced crops, the likelihood of contamination and lawsuits only increases.Monsanto has stated that they would not sue farmers who were “inadvertently” contaminated or farmers whose crops contain “trace amounts” of GMO, however they have refused to sign a simple covenant not to sue, that would bring an effective end to the lawsuit.Monsanto’s track record makes it clear that Monsanto intends to continue threatening and harassing farmers. “Monsanto has undertaken one of the most aggressive patent assertion campaigns in history,” wrote Ravicher. Monsanto admits to filing 128 lawsuits against farmers from 1997-2010, settling out of court with 700 others for an undisclosed amount. As Spiegel writes, “The passage of time and natural biological processes will inevitably lead to higher contamination levels, at which point Monsanto will have created a target-rich environment for its patent enforcement activities.”Plaintiffs Bryce Stephens, who farms in Kansas and serves as vice president of OSGATA, Frederick Kirschenmann, who farms in North Dakota, C.R. Lawn, who is founder and co-owner of Fedco Seeds in Maine, Don Patterson of Virginia and Chuck Noble, who farms in South Dakota, each submitted declarations to the court describing their personal experiences with the risk of contamination by genetically modified seed and why those experiences have forced them to bring the current suit. As summarized by the accompanying brief filed by PUBPAT on the plaintiffs’ behalf, “Monsanto’s acts of widespread patent assertion and the plaintiffs’ ever growing risk of contamination create a real, immediate and substantial dispute between them.”In their brief, the amici describe some of the harmful effects of genetically modified seed and how easily GMOs can contaminate an organic or conventional farmer’s land. The organizations filing the amici brief were Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Ecological Farmers of Ontario, Fair Food Matters, International Organic Inspectors Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environment Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Association, Organic Council of Ontario, Slow Food USA, and Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.The brief filed by the plaintiffs in opposition to Monsanto’s motion to dismiss is available here.The amici brief in support of the plaintiffs is available here.Update via ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ORGANIZATION
Click here to Support the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Organization***************************- It’s so frustrating that the little guy in our country always suffers at the hands of the big organization. I hope in this case, the band of Davids can defeat this evil goliath finally.It’s a matter of education. If people know about the benefits of organic food and the risks of non-organic and GMO food, they can make an informed choice. I choose organic food every chance I get.
R. Olson
If you put up a site where I can send money to help count me in! After watching Food Inc. I think we need to help the small guy who is not trying to hurt anyone…just make a decent living.Stephen
I totally agree, in the IT world we have the free software foundation that steps up to defend the “little guy’s”. I’d love to see an organization who’s mission was to raise funds and help support our hard working organic farmers… Anybody out there with the broad shoulders to take that on?- R Olsen, you might be interested in the Cornucopia Institute; “Seeking economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers – partnered with consumers – in support of ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.”They would be happy to receive donations:
http://www.cornucopia.org/
Stuart Krantz
No company should be allowed to control any foodstuff. There’s nothing wrong with capitalism but when they control a food market, I call that predatory capitalism. That’s taking a healthy appreciation and outlook of business just a tad too far. We must support policies that are good for people and not for business. We allow this issue to occur at our folly.glimcrose
You couldn’t be more right Stuart!The very first time they began to introduce the title ‘ORGANIC’ before a product’s name, i knew we were in trouble!“Should there ever be another way to grow food crops but organically?”“And does it mean that a larger %age of the food products in our markets are synthetic, more so are we actually suppose to be content with that!”“I found fruits with no seeds in them in some countries i’ve visited, very sad”.Having control of who can grow food crops and who can’t is merely another clever way to subject people to total monarchy.
Leslie
I want to send money!! take these f*#&ers out!Rebecca
The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Monsanto, is accepting donations. Donation money goes directly towards funding the lawsuit, as well as PR for helping to get the word out to the public.Here’s the link to donate: http://www.osgata.org/support-osgataJesse Taylor
The lawsuits should be the other way around where the organic farmer needs to be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his crops. If a field is contaminated with Monsanto patented ‘life’ then it can no longer be considered organic. Since organic is a point of marketing these days. It would seem to me that it is the organic farmer that is the victim here twice over, not just because of the threat of lawsuit, but because of the contamination in the first place.- Hi Jesse,You’re right on target and it’s starting to happen. Here’s a recent link on just what you suggested.
- So they finally got some nuts. It took long enough.
- I am so happy to hear that the family farmers are fighting back! It is scary to think that there’s a possibility of heirloom seeds disappearing and even scarier to think that a corporation could potentially control the food supply. I buy organic as much as I can and I try to grow my own vegetables as well. There is a very good documentary on the same topic called The Future of Food (thefutureoffood.com) if anyone wants to check it out, they go into explaining how GM seeds come to be and how the use of pesticides have increased dramatically in the recent years, it’s definitely worth watching.
- Thank you, Cindy. Great info and here’s the clickable link to the movie:
http://www.futureoffood.com
- It’s easy, just have your armed ranch hands walk the property line and let the monsanto come tank your crops…
- Except that Monsanto purchased the infamous Blackwater mercenary group through a subsidiary of the company. What would Monsanto need with it’s own private army?
- Permalink Reply by on
- subsidiary of the company. What would Monsanto need with it’s own private army?
- this actually is a really big deal – they are selling seedless growing plants in India that are putting farms out of business with an unsustainable crop – look into this, having just a free breeds of each plant is cause for disaster – ever heard of the lumpar potato…?
- meh, thank you. The farming situation in India is going through some very tough times. Here are a couple of recent articles:
- About time. Down with Monsanto and their poison and greed.
- What about the farmers that Monsanto has already sued and put out of business? I would really love to see them reimbursed!
- and monsanto would solve out as always, giving some little money (compared to its benefits) to the court members or just sometimes to the growers/farmers? is that how we solve unfair and unethical behaviour?
i dont like.
is that also the democracy that we would like to have? or is just oligarchy of really few people gettin richer and richer just because politics have to act on behalf of the financial market?
And as i dont want that…. letś change it~!! - Very exciting, but just wondering where the “270,000 organic farmers” figure comes from. I am seeing figures in cross-referenced articles between 60 and 85 farmers involved in the March 2011 filing…. Thanks!
- Hi Tamara, the 270,000 farmers are all members of the plaintiff organizations. Here are some additional details:
- Monsanto is beyond evil. I hope the 270,000 get a million a piece. Taking Monsanto apart might be the best thing that ever happens to agriculture.
- Organic food is our right! If Monsanto gets their way, what’s next …the air we breath will be owned by a multinational corporation?
- “It’s a matter of education. If people know about the benefits of organic food and the risks of non-organic and GMO food, they can make an informed choice. I choose organic food every chance I get”The fact is, you (we) are a minority in this country. Most people do not really care about these issues. What kind of seed is used? Get real! It has no immediate bearing on most people’s lives, thus it is irrelevant to them.What I’d like to know is what the heck ever happened to anti-trust laws and enforcement? Remember Standard Oil? Where are the court justices who will break up Monsanto?
- Thank you, Mark. We’re with you on organics!There’s is a lot to be said for the influence our financial system has. Publicly traded corporations are ultimately controlled by Wall Street and the company stockholders.
- i am so rapt to see this occuring, i was very afriad after watching food inc, king corn, and other similar docos that the agricultural situation in america (dispite fantastic growth in orgainic and slow food movements) was in very dire straights indeed! awesome to see people standing up for what they believe in and fighting back!! good luck guys! what you do often flows on and affects the rest of the world, so i hope you win!
***************************************************************************************Monarch Butterflies: Latest Victims of GMO’s
Leave a comment ?4 Comments.
Milkweed and monarchs continue to be abundant in the Roundup Ready crop growing areas. The crop margins / roadsides are not sprayed so there’s still a vast and stable supply of milkweed available for the monarchs.What other inland area of the USA, besides the GMO farmland of the upper midwest, are there monarchs clusters this big in numerous farm towns in the late summer?:
Bird Island, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g
Danube, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDxKwEgsjPc&NR=1
Gibbon, Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCayVVKhlWM
Winthrop, Minnesota:aloha.* Posting fromMONSANTO IS TRESPASSING...........SUE JOBS......BAN GMO'S............KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS..............
- Permalink Reply by on
- Michael Jackson's Butterflies MJ was one of the greatest artists Of all time im amazed how many views this has gotten but its no surprise Thanks for viewing
All you gotta do is
Walk away and pass me by
Don't acknowledge my smile
When I try to say hello to you, yeah
And all you gotta do is
Not answer my call when I'm tryin' to get through
Keep me wonderin' why
When all I can do is sigh, I just wanna touch you
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
'Cause you give me butterflies
Inside, inside and I
All I got to say is
That I must be dreamin', can't be real
You're not here with me
Still, but I can feel you near to me
I caress you, let you taste and
Just so blissful, listen
I would give you anything, babe
Just make my dream come true
Oh baby, you give me butterflies
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
'Cause you give me butterflies
Inside, inside and
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
'Cause you give me butterflies
Inside, inside and I
If you will take my hand
Baby, I will show you
Guide you to the light, babe
If you will be my love
Baby, I will love you, love you
'Til the end of time
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
You give me butterflies
Inside, inside and
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
You give me butterflies
Inside, inside and
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
'Cause you give me butterflies
Inside, inside and
I just wanna touch and kiss
And I wish that I could be with you tonight
You give me butterflies
Inside, inside and I
Sony Music Entertainment No Copyright infringement intended Please Support official releases
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Masami
Voice
Voice
Voice
K.c.
Voice
K.c.
Voice
Voice
The Evil BS Food Bill - S510 & H.R.2751 Good State Of Vermont ...
The Evil BS Food Bill - S510 & H.R.2751 Good State Of Vermont. Submitted by Sonny on Sat, 12/25/2010 - 23:52. in. Daily Paul Liberty Forum ...
www.dailypaul.com › Forums › Daily Paul Liberty Forum- CachedTime to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and
Falling Prices Are Over Forever
Jeremy Grantham
Summary of the Summary
The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value.
We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.
Summary
Until about 1800, our species had no safety margin and lived, like other animals, up to the limit of the food supply,
ebbing and fl owing in population.
From about 1800 on the use of hydrocarbons allowed for an explosion in energy use, in food supply, and, through
the creation of surpluses, a dramatic increase in wealth and scientifi c progress.
Since 1800, the population has surged from 800 million to 7 billion, on its way to an estimated 8 billion, at
minimum.
The rise in population, the ten-fold increase in wealth in developed countries, and the current explosive growth in
developing countries have eaten rapidly into our fi nite resources of hydrocarbons and metals, fertilizer, available
land, and water.
Now, despite a massive increase in fertilizer use, the growth in crop yields per acre has declined from 3.5% in
the 1960s to 1.2% today. There is little productive new land to bring on and, as people get richer, they eat more
grain-intensive meat. Because the population continues to grow at over 1%, there is little safety margin.
The problems of compounding growth in the face of fi nite resources are not easily understood by optimistic,
short-term-oriented, and relatively innumerate humans (especially the political variety).
The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run
out of everything and crash. We must substitute qualitative growth for quantitative growth.
But Mrs. Market is helping, and right now she is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all
important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now,
this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.
Statistically, most commodities are now so far away from their former downward trend that it makes it very
probable that the old trend has changed – that there is in fact a Paradigm Shift – perhaps the most important
economic event since the Industrial Revolution.
Climate change is associated with weather instability, but the last year was exceptionally bad. Near term it will
surely get less bad.
Excellent long-term investment opportunities in resources and resource effi ciency are compromised by the high
chance of an improvement in weather next year and by the possibility that China may stumble.
From now on, price pressure and shortages of resources will be a permanent feature of our lives. This will
increasingly slow down the growth rate of the developed and developing world and put a severe burden on poor
countries.
We all need to develop serious resource plans, particularly energy policies. There is little time to waste. (Read more at link above..................... )
- Permalink Reply by on
3) Why so-called "responsible agricultural investment" must be stopped
RAI is being used to normalise land grabbingApril 2011www.tni.org/files/imagecache/4fullnode/land-grab-rai.jpg" class="imagecache imagecache-4fullnode imagecache-default imagecache-4fullnode_default" width="150" height="113"/>
Download PDF for full unabridged text.On 18-20 April 2011, a gathering of some 200 farmland investors, government officials and international civil servants met at the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC to discuss how to operationalise "responsible" large-scale land acquisitions. Over in Rome, the Committee on World Food Security, housed at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is about to start a process of consultation on principles to regulate such deals. Social movements and civil society organisations (CSOs), on the other hand, are mobilising to stop land grabs, and undo the ones already coming into play, as a matter of utmost urgency. Why do the World Bank, UN agencies and a number of highly concerned governments insist on trying to promote these land grab deals as "responsible agricultural investments"?Today's farmland grabs are moving fast. Contracts are getting signed, bulldozers are hitting the ground, land is being aggressively fenced off and local people are getting kicked off their territories with devastating consequences. While precise details are hard to come by, it is clear that at least 50 million hectares of good agricultural land – enough to feed 50 million families in India – have been transferred from farmers to corporations in the last few years alone, and each day more investors join the rush.[1] Some of these deals are presented as a novel way to meet food security needs of countries dependent on external markets to feed themselves, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea or China. Others are bluntly exposed for what they really are: business deals and hot new profit opportunities. Despite the involvement of states, most of these transactions are between host governments and private corporations. Firms involved estimate that US $25 billion have already been committed globally, and boast that this figure will triple in a very near future.[2]What is RAI?Nervous about the potential political backlash from the current phase of land grabbing, a number of concerned governments and agencies, from Japan to the G-8, have stepped forward to suggest criteria that could make these deals acceptable. The most prominent among these is the World Bank-led Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respect Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (RAI). The RAI were jointly formulated by the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).[3]They consist of seven principles that investors may wish to voluntarily subscribe to when conducting large-scale farmland acquisitions (see box). It is noteworthy that the RAI principles were never submitted for approval to the governing bodies of these four institutions.RAI (or seven principles for "win-win" landgrabbing):- Land and resource rights: Existing rights to land and natural resources are recognised and respected.
- Food security: Investments do not jeopardise food security, but rather strengthen it.
- Transparency, good governance and enabling environment: Processes for accessing land and making associated investments are transparent, monitored, and ensure accountability.
- Consultation and participation: Those materially affected are consulted and agreements from consultations are recorded and enforced.
- Economic viability and responsible agro-enterprise investing: Projects are viable in every sense, respect the rule of law, reflect industry best practice, and result in durable shared value.
- Social sustainability: Investments generate desirable social and distributional impacts and do not increase vulnerability.
- Environmental sustainability: Environmental impacts are quantified and measures taken to encourage sustainable resource use, while minimising and mitigating the negative impact.
The main RAI pushers (since 2009):
EU, FAO, G8, G20, IFAD Japan, Switzerland, UNCTAD, US, World Bank
In April 2010, some 130 organisations and networks from across the world, including some of the most representative alliances of farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, denounced the RAI initiative. Their statement debunked RAI as a move to try to legitimise land grabbing and asserted that facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter which guidelines are followed.
In April 2010, some 130 organisations and networks from across the world, including some of the most representative alliances of farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, denounced the RAI initiative. Their statement debunked RAI as a move to try to legitimise land grabbing and asserted that facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter which guidelines are followed.[4]This statement was endorsed by many more groups and social movements from around the world following its release. Shortly after, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food publicly criticised RAI for being "woefully inadequate" and said, "It is regrettable that, instead of rising to the challenge of developing agriculture in a way that is more socially and environmentally sustainable, we act as if accelerating the destruction of the global peasantry could be accomplished responsibly."[5]In September 2010, the World Bank released its much anticipated report about large-scale land acquisitions. After two years of research, the Bank could not find any convincing examples of "wins" for poor communities or countries, only a long list of losses. In fact, companies and governments involved in the land deals refused to share information about their transactions with the Bank, so it relied instead on a website (farmlandgrab.org) managed by the CSO GRAIN for its data. Even though the report noted the lack of consultation behind the RAI initiative, the Bank still advocated RAI as the solution.Despite the RAI framework's serious credibility problem, the CFS debated a motion on whether or not to endorse it in October 2010. Some governments, such as the US and Japan were in favour. Others, including South Africa, Egypt on behalf of the Near East group and China, expressed strong opposition due to lack of an appropriate consultative process. A coalition of movements and organisations released a detailed critique of the RAI framework and principles prior to the CFS meeting.[6]This catalysed rural social movements, particularly those affiliated with the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), and other civil society groups to call on the CFS to reject RAI. In the end, the CFS did not endorse RAI, agreeing only to pursue an inclusive process to consider it.
By the end of 2010, it looked as though the high-level push for socially acceptable or "win-win" land grabbing was floundering. Social movements and other CSOs, meanwhile, continued to build popular opposition to RAI. At the World Social Forum in Dakar in February 2011, farmers' movements, and human rights, social justice and environmental organisations gathered to share experiences and consolidate their struggles against land grabbing without the distraction of this code of conduct nonsense, and launched a public appeal to reject RAI and resist land grabbing that continues to gather support.[7]The RAI proponents, however, refuse to give up.
The CFS Bureau is currently discussing a proposal for a process of consultation on RAI.An initial draft circulated for comment drew sharp criticism from social movements and CSOs. The IPC stated that it will oppose a process whose main focus is to try to alleviate the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions and endorse RAI. Instead, it argued, the CFS should first analyse if RAI is the adequate response to the problems on the ground and re-focus the discussion on the question of what kind of agricultural investment is needed to overcome hunger and support small-scale farmers, particularly women. The IPC further recommended that the CFS stop using the term RAI because it is heavily associated with land grabbing, not investment. But the four agencies behind RAI seem keen to push on.
The World Bank has just released the programme for this year's annual conference on land and poverty at its Washington DC headquarters.RAI is at the very heart of the discussions. The Bank's main goal now is to start "operationalising" RAI by building on experiences of other "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) schemes such as the Roundtables on Responsible Soy, Sustainable Palm Oil and Sustainable Biofuels, as well as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative.In the meantime, countries are scrambling to contain growing opposition to the global land rush. With all the talk of "win-win" outcomes ringing hollow against the reality of impacts of these deals on local communities, smallholder agricultural producers and workers, some governments, such as Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand, are responding with promises of legislation to cap or discipline foreigners' abilities to acquire domestic farmland. Others, such as Cambodia, Ethiopia and Ghana, are using legal and brute force to suppress local contestation. In the run-up to the 2012 elections in Mali, the opposition Party for National Renewal has challenged President Touré to disclose all details of land leases amounting to several hundred thousands of irrigated hectares granted in the Office du Niger. In Sudan, the most "land grabbed" country in Africa, villagers are now rising up against the government in Khartoum for having seized their lands.What is wrong with RAIThe push for RAI is not about facilitating investment in agriculture. It is about creating an illusion that by following a set of standards, large-scale land acquisitions can proceed without disastrous consequences to peoples, communities, ecosystems and the climate. This is false and misleading. RAI is an attempt to cover up power imbalances so that the land grabbers and state authorities who make the deals can get what they want. Farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, after all, are not asking for their lands to be sold off or leased away!
Land grabbing forecloses vast stretches of lands and ecosystems for current and future use by peasants, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk and nomads, thus seriously jeopardising their rights to food and livelihood security. It captures whatever water resources exist on, below and around these lands, resulting in the de facto privatisation of water.The violation of international human rights law is an intrinsic part of land grabbing through forced evictions, the silencing (and worse) of critics, the introduction of non-sustainable models of land use and agriculture that destroy natural environments and deplete natural resources, the blatant denial of information, and the prevention of meaningful local participation in political decisions that affect people's lives. No set of voluntary principles will remedy these facts and realities. Nor can they be misconstrued and presented as public policy or state regulation.Land grabs, which target 20% profit rates for investors, are all about financial speculation. This is why land grabbing is completely incompatible with ensuring food security: food production can only bring profits of 3-5%. Land grabbing simply enhances the commodification of agriculture whose sole purpose is the over-remuneration of speculative capital.There are some who believe that promoting transparency in land acquisition deals can somehow lead to "win-win" outcomes. However, even if done "transparently," the transfer of large tracts of land, forests, coastal areas and water sources to investors is still going to deprive smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk and other local communities from crucial, life sustaining resources for generations to come.In many countries, there is an urgent need to strengthen systems that protect land tenure of peasants and small-scale food producers, and many social movements have been fighting for recognition of their rights to land for many years. The RAI principles will make any progress on agrarian reform or land rights meaningless.
Why We Oppose the Principles for
As for the big private players themselves, RAI can only amount to another feather in their "CSR" cap, a public relations act that they can point to when convenient. In the real world, they will continue to rely on bilateral trade and investment agreements, legal loopholes, compliant states, political risk insurance schemes and support from international institutions that promote RAI, to protect their interests and save them from any financial pain or responsibility.
The problem is obvious. These agribusiness projects – from the 100,000 hectare Malibya deal in the Office du Niger, Mali, to the 320,000 hectare Beidahuang Group deal in Rio Negro, Argentina – do great harm and are profoundly illegitimate. Trying to compensate for this absence of legitimacy by getting investors to adhere to a few principles is deceitful.
Invest in food sovereignty!
RAI is out of step with the times. The whole approach to so-called agricultural development that it embodies – a greenhouse gas pumping, fossil fuel guzzling, biodiversity depleting, water privatising, soil eroding, community impoverishing, genetically modified seed-dependent production system – belongs in the 20th century rubbish heap of destructive, unsustainable development.Just as our Arab sisters and brothers have been breaking the shackles of old regimes to recover their dignity and space for self-determination, we need to break the shackles of the corporate agriculture and food system.
Rather than be codified and sanctioned, land grabbing must be immediately stopped and banned. This means that parliaments and national governments should- urgently suspend all large-scale land transactions,
- rescind the deals already signed,
- return the misappropriated lands to communities and
- outlaw land grabbing.
Governments must also stop oppressing and criminalising peoples for defending their lands and release detained activists.
We reiterate the demands made repeatedly by social movements, CSOs and numerous academics to urgently implement actions agreed at the 2006 International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development – the most authoritative and consensual multilateral framework for land and natural resources – as well as the conclusions of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. We equally call on the CFS to adopt the FAO Guidelines on the Governance of Land and Natural Resources which are strongly rooted in human rights law so that they can be effectively used to protect and fulfill the rights to land and natural resources of all rural and urban constituencies at national and international levels.
It is obvious to us that a broad consensus has grown over the past several years around the real solutions to hunger, the food crisis and climate chaos, namely that:- peasant agriculture, family farming, artisanal fishing and indigenous food procurement systems that are based on ecological methods and short marketing circuits are the ways forward toward sustainable, healthy and livelihood-enhancing food systems;
- production, distribution and consumption systems must radically change to fit the carrying capacity of the earth;
- new agricultural policies that respond to the needs, proposals and direct control of small-scale food producers have to replace the current top-down, corporate-led, neoliberal regimes; and
- genuine agrarian and aquatic reform programmes have to be carried through to return land and ecosystems to local communities.
This is the path to food sovereignty and justice, quite the opposite of "responsible" land grabbing. And we will continue to push and fight for it with many allies the world over.Signed by:- Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano (Study Centre for Change in the Mexican Countryside)
- FIAN International
- Focus on the Global South
- Friends of the Earth International
- Global Campaign on Agrarian Reform
- GRAIN
- La Via Campesina
- Land Research Action Network
- Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos (Social Network for Justice and Human Rights)
- World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP)
- World Forum of Fisher Peoples
Notes:[1] In 2010, the World Bank reported that 47 million hectares were leased or sold off worldwide in 2009 alone while the Global Land Project calculated that 63 million hectares changed hands in just 27 countries of Africa. See "New World Bank report sees growing global demand for farmland", World Bank, Washington DC, 7 September 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/15309, and Cecilie Friis & Anette Reenberg, "Land grab in Africa: Emerging land system drivers in a teleconnected world", GLP Report No. 1, The Global Land Project, Denmark, August 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/14816, respectively.
[2] See High Quest Partners, "Private financial sector investment in farmland and agricultural
infrastructure", OECD, Paris, August 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/16060.
[3] The four agencies have also created an internet-based knowledge platform to exchange information about RAI. See http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/[4]"Stop land grabbing now! Say NO to the principles on responsible agro-enterprise investment
promoted by the World Bank", available online at http://www.landaction.org/spip/spip.php?article553
[5] "Responsibly destroying the world’s peasantry" by Olivier de Schutter, Brussels, 4 June 2010, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deschutter1/EnglishSee also
- Investing in land: a commentary on the World Bank report
- Regulating landgrabbing?
- Land Grabs - Another Scramble for Africa
- Walden Bello: Structural Adjustment Programmes dictated by the IMF ...
- The Global Land Grab Debate
*******************************************Note: Ko Hawaii Pae Aina Watchdog group ? suggestions/comments welcomed..........aloha.Views: 35
Print this page- Permalink Reply by on
- DANIEL AKAKA AND DANIEL INOUYE SUPPORTED BY MONSANTO......They Received FUNDS...........
Voice
Reminders of the two Genocide Activists:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Behind the Blinds at...Central Pacific Bank
Sightings from The Catbird Seat~ o ~Central Pacific stock falls;Fitch cuts ratingBy Dave Segal, Star-BulletinCentral Pacific Financial Corp.'s stock lost more than 20 percent of its value yesterday as it continued to free-fall on the heels of last week's announcement that it lost $183.1 million in the third quarter and that it was anticipating enforcement action to be taken against it by federal and state regulators due to the bank's financial condition.The parent of Central Pacific Bank received more bad news after the market closed. Fitch Ratings downgraded the long-term issuer default rating of the bank to "CCC" from "B," and Standard & Poor's said, effective Monday, it will replace Central Pacific in the SmallCap 600 Index with Compellent Technologies Inc., a network storage solution provider.Bank officials did not return calls yesterday for comment.Central Pacific's shares have given up more than half their value since the bank said Thursday its commercial real estate portfolio in the California and Hawaii markets continues to deteriorate and that it expects the economic conditions to persist through the coming quarters. The company also said it expects to enter into a formal agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and theHawaii Division of Financial Institutions over the bank's need to address its asset quality, capital needs and liquidity.Fitch said the downgrade of the bank's rating reflects the significant escalation of credit problems both in its California and Hawaii loan portfolios."While Fitch expected the company to endure increased credit stress in its Hawaii portfolio, as well as in its still-sizable exposure to California real estate, the recent level of deterioration exceeded Fitch's original projections," the agency said. "Credit deterioration, which is not expected to abate in the near term, has generated sizable losses and caused considerable erosion to the bank's capital position."Fitch believes that the company will continue to generate material losses, which will continue to erode capital and reduce the benefit of any potential capital augmentation."Central Pacific Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ron Migita said Thursday the bank is exploring all options to raise additional capital, including a public offering and selling shares to private-equity investors."We're raising capital to meet the challenge in a difficult economic climate so we can navigate through this downturn and emerge as a stronger bank when the economy recovers," Migita said. "We think things on the mainland appear to be stabilizing somewhat, but the Hawaii economy traditionally has lagged the mainland, so until such time that the (Hawaii) unemployment level stops increasing (7.2 percent in September) and jobs are being created, I think we're going to be in for some challenging times here in Hawaii."But Fitch said that the prospects for raising sufficient equity from external sources to absorb expected losses and meet enhanced regulatory capital requirements are limited.Fitch said the bank is now in violation of existing regulatory agreements, which call for the bank to maintain enhanced capital levels that exceed the minimum regulatory requirements to be considered "well capitalized." Fitch said the bank no longer is maintaining a leverage ratio of 9 percent.S&P, meanwhile, said it was replacing Central Pacific in the index because the company's market share had fallen below the minimum market capitalization of $35 million to remain in the index. The market cap necessary to be added to the index is currently $200 million.Central Pacific's stock fell 21.3 percent, or 30 cents, to $1.11 yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange after trading as low as $1.04. Its market cap is now $31.9 million.Analyst Joseph Gladue of B. Riley also cut his rating on the stock to "neutral" from "buy" and lowered his target price to $1.50 from $3.50, while analyst Robert Bohlen of Keefe, Bruyette and Wood maintained his rating on the stock at "market perform" but lowered his target price to $1 from $1.90.
"Joe Jap" Inouye Pulls a SLY ONE, A Terrorist Move on Kanaka Maoli, the "newly created Indians"....WICKED!
Pilipo posted this:Sunday, October 30, 2011 Sneak Attack: Inouye hides Akaka Bill in Policy Rider -- just after “Grazing Permits”
By Andrew Walden :: 568 Views :: Hawaii State News, Hawaii State Politics, National News, National Politics
by Andrew WaldenDan Inouye’s Akaka Bill sneak attack was smacked down in December, 2009and again in December, 2010—but he’s back for one more try.Inouye’s latest version of the Akaka Bill popped up October 14. It is a single paragraph. Buried on page 124 in a proposed Senate Appropriations Committee draft bill for “Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations” it comes just after “Extension of Grazing Permits”:Section 104 of Public Law 103-454, also known as the “Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994” requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a list of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes.Act 195 created a five-member commission—now headed by gambling advocate,Clinton Asian Money Scandal player, and Broken Trust figure John Waihee--to enroll “Qualified” native Hawaiian constituents according to a long list of criteria which exclude about 73% of native Hawaiians.Inouye’s version, in conjunction with Act 195, creates an instant Indian tribe with no restriction on the right to claim legal jurisdiction and exclude state law enforcement over its members. It was these characteristics, introduced beginning with the 2009 version of the Akaka Bill, which forced long-time Akaka Bill supporters Governor Linda Lingle and Attorney General Mark Bennett to reverse their stance and come out in opposition.When native Hawaiian protesters accused Inouye of trying to sneak the Akaka Bill into a 2009 defense appropriations bill, Inouye called the allegation “nonsensical” and claimed the process for the Akaka Bill “has been fully transparent.” Senator Akaka told reporters: "It is very frustrating that opponents intentionally seek to spread misinformation about the bill. This should call their credibility into question once again." But two years later theStar-Advertiser headline is: “Akaka OKs Native Hawaiian recognition strategy.”In the text of his statementThursday, October 27 to a convention of the Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Akaka told convention-goers: “As a result of the enrollment process which is already beginning under Act 195, I am now reviewing my bill and looking for ways to streamline it.”Akaka didn’t see fit to mention that his bill had two weeks earlier been “streamlined” down to a single paragraph and slipped in right after Grazing Permits by Senator “Transparency”.The only thing that is “transparent” is the admission by Akaka Gang leaders that the Akaka Tribe is not a tribe. Hawaiians are not and never have been tribal.Inouye’s one-paragraph Akaka Bill refers to a ”community”, not a tribe. This follows several months of candid admissions by Akaka Gang leaders. The Star-Advertisereditorialized July 11:Sen. Malama Solomon, an Akaka Gang leader, self-described “friend” of the Big Island’slargest methamphetamines importer, and gambling advocate recently busted forbulldozing Hawaiian archaeological sites, explained July 1: “Hawaiians are very different from the American tribes; we had a kingdom that was recognized by the United States and many other nations around the world before the overthrow.”And who will be in charge of deciding which Hawaiians are “qualified”? Akamai readers will of course instantly recognize Waihee as the author ofa 1995 proposal to relocate the Broken Trust Bishop Estate Headquarters to the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Instead of moving to an Indian Reservation the Broken Trust gang is trying to assemble an Indian reservation around themselves. Waihee is in chargeof ensuring that only politically trustworthy cronies are deemed “qualified.”Now, with a single paragraph slipped into page 124 of an 181 page bill, Senator Dan Inouye is attempting to trick Congress into ratifying the entire scheme. And once again, Hawaii is depending on Republican Senators to save us from our own Congressional Delegation.---30---- SB1520 SD2HD3CD1, signed into law as Act 195
- Full Text: Draft of FY2012 Interior, Environment(see page 124)
- US Senate: Reed and Murkowski Release Draft of FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
- 2009: Inouye denies planning "Akaka Bill Sneak Attack"
- 2010: Another Akaka Bill sneak attack? GOP Senators tell Inouye to back off
- Qualified Native Hawaiians: More than 73% of Hawaiians not "Qualified" for membership in Akaka Tribe
- Shapiro: Hawaiian “Haves” vs “Have-nots” take opposite sides on so-called Hawaiian Recognition Bill
- Reservation for a Broken Trust?
- Akaka: Act 195 Allows Streamlining of Akaka Bill
By Hawaii Free Press @ Monday, October 31, 2011 4:19 PMComments from the following blog entry: October 31, 2011 News Read , located at: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/articleTy...
By Hawaii Free Press @ Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:03 PMComments from the following blog entry: Akaka Introduces Bill to Give Tribal Authorities Legal Jurisdiction..., located at: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/Ar...****************************************fyiWith the Permanent Friendship Treaties still in place...................."Joe Jap" Inouye and Congress Friends are Not the Parties to the EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS in place but a documented Genocide Activist, a Terrorist against a Neutral, Non Violent, Friendly Nation..........and all of you who don't know.................my great grandfather was documented"JOE JAP" in the marriage records of my grandfather...........he arrived here in 1868, with about seven (7) others who fled Japan because they were going to use him as a Eunoch in the Palace............we would not exist if he did not arrive here and marry our part Hawaiian Alii great grandmother.Great grandfather was from Yamaguchi Japan - the Heike clan who ruled Japan for nearly 300 years....................his full name was Matsugoro Takeshita, "Goraimo" - a master swordsman - Samurai......so, I can call Inouye "JOE JAP" too.................fyi.............Opposition to Inouye is hereby made, information posted for PUBLIC NOTICE.........aloha.p.s. we have relatives in Japan..........a Japanese Professor was looking for our family branch...........and we are here............mixed bloodlines with the Kamehameha's, Kalaniopuu's, the Royal Families in the Hawaiian Islands..........and Friendship Treaties with Japan, et. als. continue.........Nation to Nation, our Neutral, Friendly, Non-Violent, Friendly Nation ............the HEADS and the King's HEIRS and SUCCESSORS....Opposition to the Akaka remains.........Sincerely,Amelia Gora, a Royal Person, a living human being,One of the Representatives of the Hawaiian Genealogical Society/Hawaiian Genealogy Society- SB1520 SD2HD3CD1
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reminder that the two Genocide Activists continue to perpetuate the frauds, criminal deviance from the past, etc.:THE HAWAIIAN DISGRACECASE HISTORY HAWAIISHAMEFUL CONSPIRACY (PIRACY)SAYS GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS TRUSTS - President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen LiliuokalaniThis is Pilipo's Message to also remind many:Aloha kakou,If you have seen the new Fake State versions of Akakadized, you are missing a great circus. In the year 2000, the Hawaii U. S. Congress members came home to Hawaii to "Island-wide" Public Hearings on the proposed Akaka Bill but never left Oahu. The Bill then with all its professionalism was primitive compared to what is now at the Fake State 2011 Legislature. SB1, SB1520 and HB 1627 all are proposed Legislation at the current session. There may even be others. This is sometimes known as "miss the chicken, crack the duck" syndrome, basically what ever gets pass has the same effect.These Bills may be slightly worded differently but they all mean the same. It is almost like voting for Statehood again, where no matter what version you choose, you were cooked. For example, lets take a look at HB1627. From its first page, Section 1, Chapter "First Nation Government" is incomplete where it only discloses what the United States did to make themselves look good and descent but fails to disclose what the United States did to make the Hawaiian Nation look bad and unworthy. The First Nation of Hawaii did not begin the day after the alleged overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Nation January 17, 1893. The First Nation began with the consolidation of the Hawaiian Sandwich Islands by King Kamehameha the Great in 1809 but that is mute.Section 2 of the proposed bill is Definitions, as used in this chapter: glosses-over of what is the definition of a Native Hawaiian. Existing Federal laws certify a Native Hawaiian is one with at least 50 % aboriginal (Kanaka Maoli) blood (koko) However, "First nation government" means the governing entity organized pursuant to this chapter by the qualified Native Hawaiianconstituents, and "Native Hawaiian membership organization" means an organization that lists five activities. But the camel's backbreaker is the definition of "Qualified Native Hawaiian constituent,which means, prior to the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, an individual who satisfies the following criteria and who makes a written statement certifying that the individual "IS", not and/or, an individual that meets twenty (20) specific conditions which designate one being "qualified Native Hawaiian constituent or member of.This is "Akakadized" All the bills say the same ting. They are a 'Ajinimoto" versions of the Akaka Initiative of 2000, aka the Akaka Tribe. But too late for there is already a Hawaiian Tribe that is in agreement with the Department of Indian Affairs known as the Hou Hawaiians back in the 1997. These bills are a conglomerate of ingredients that reads like a Chinese menu or a Pharmaceutical remedy for cancer. Yes, the Akaka Pill that will once and for all cure all Hawaiians ills.But the final nail in the coffin is definition (4) "Is a citizen of the United States residing in the State of Hawaii or resides outside the State of Hawaii. This mandate coincides with the voting requirements in the formulation of the Republic of Hawaii in 1894 where voters where required to swear an oath of allegiance to the newly formed Republic and its Constitution before they could register to vote.The original Akaka Bill could not muster Constitutionality, nor can any other form of legislation by the Fake State Hawaii Legislature. Above and beyond all, the Akaka Initiative and all forms of legislation and enactments concerning the the Hawaiian Nation of Ko Hawaii Pae Aina are based upon fraud that has perpetuated theft for 118 years.I have sent you this in case you are falling asleep and in need of agitation to wake you up.malama ke kinopilipo,Hawaiian National (1936)************************************************Documenting Genocide Activities/Activists....
Something STINKS...............(.and I know it's NOT ME) WICKED TO THE MAX!aloha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGKx2LNbF5MSudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)by sablancpm 2 years ago 4,201 viewsViews: 4Something STINKS...............(.and I know it's NOT ME) WICKED TO THE MAX!aloha.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGKx2LNbF5MSudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)by sablancpm 2 years ago 4,201 views
- Permalink Reply by on
Bill to “Ban” Organic Farming
Youtube
Monday, March 9, 2009Bill is to long to post, so I linked to a .gov pdf of itPay special attention to* Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it’s entirety.
* section 103, 206 and 207- read in it’s entirety.What it Does:* Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
****************************also see AgricultureLaw.coml fyi:
http://www.agriculturelaw.com/ the BIOFUELS is what MONSANTO's purpose in Kunia also:Posted By Keith Good On January 13, 2012Budget IssuesDamian Paletta reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The White House notified Congress on Thursday that the government was near its $15.194 trillion borrowing limit, ushering in the debut of procedural theater in which the debt limit will ultimately be raised even if Congress votes against it.“Formal notification by the administration gives Congress 15 days to disapprove of an increase, or the debt ceiling would automatically adjust up an additional $1.2 trillion.“But under procedures resulting from last August’s budget agreement that sought to avoid a government default, President Barack Obama could issue a veto, and the ceiling would rise even if Congress moves to block it.”The Journal article explained that, “The government likely wouldn’t need to raise the debt ceiling again until late 2012 or early 2013.“As of Tuesday, U.S. debt was just $25 million below the debt ceiling. The Treasury Department already had begun emergency measures to delay hitting the debt limit while it waited for Congress to return from its holiday break for a vote.”Today’s article added that, “Congress keeps increasing the debt ceiling because the U.S. government spends more money than it brings in through tax receipts. The government ran a $1.3 trillion deficit in each of the past two fiscal years, though the deficit is expected to shrink slightly this year as the economy improves.”And yesterday’s Need-to-Know Daily Email from National Journal reported that, “House and Senate staffers who are working on the conference on the payroll-tax bill convened on Wednesday as a group, even though the 20 payroll-tax conferees themselves have not yet met. Sources tell National Journal the meeting ran for about 30 minutes and members plan to meet sometime during the week of Jan. 24—the week the Senate returns from recess.”Ed O’Keefe noted earlier this week at the Federal Eye Blog (Washington Post) that, “Whether you believe the size of the government is too big, too small or just right, make no mistake: Strict spending restrictions enacted as part of last summer’s debt negotiations coupled with a White House eager to demonstrate a serious commitment to spending cuts means several agencies are trimming the payroll.“In the most aggressive reorganization of a non-security agency announced to date, the Agriculture Department unveiled plans Tuesday to close 259 domestic offices across the country and seven overseas offices, mostly in tiny rural farming communities that will be served by other nearby locations.“The closures are part of plans to save about $150 million annually in the department’s $145 billion budget. Already $90 million has been saved by cutting travel and supplies; the closures could save up to $60 million, officials said.”Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee was a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams. During their discussion yesterday, Rep. Peterson briefly commented on USDA plans to close some FSA (Farm Service Agency) offices- related audio here (1:19).Agricultural Economy (Government Reports, Food Prices)A news release yesterday from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) stated that, “Hindered by unfavorable planting and growing conditions during 2011, U.S. farmers produced a smaller crop than the previous year according to the Crop Production 2011 Summary released today by [NASS].“Depending on location, producers in the United States battled everything from drought and above normal temperatures to heavy rains and lowland flooding which led to decreased production of corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat – the first time such a year-to-year decrease has occurred in all four commodities since the 2002 crop year.”The release indicated that, “Corn production totaled 12.4 billion bushels, down 1 percent from 2010. Corn yield in 2011 is estimated at 147.2 bushels per acre, 5.6 bushels below last year’s average yield. Area harvested, at 84.0 million acres, is up 3 percent from 2010.“Soybean production for 2011 totaled 3.06 billion bushels, down 8 percent 2010. The average soybean yield is estimated at 41.5 bushels per acre, 2.0 bushels below last year’s yield. Harvested area for soybeans in 2011, at 73.6 million acres, is down 4 percent from 2010.”More specifically, an update posted yesterday at the farmdocdaily blog (“USDA Reports Negative for Crop Prices,” by University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Darrel Good), stated that, “Today, the USDA released the December Grain Stocks report, the Annual Crop Production report, the Winter Wheat Seedings report, and the monthly WASDE report. The reports reflected a more abundant supply situation for corn and particularly for soybeans than had been anticipated. Wheat estimates provided a more mixed picture.”The update noted that, “Year ending stocks of corn in the U.S. are projected at 846 million bushels, nearly identical to last month’s projection, but the forecast of the marketing year average price was reduced by $.20, in a range of $5.70 to $6.70.”The farmdoc daily update added that, “Year ending stocks of U.S. soybeans are projected at 275 million bushels, 45 million larger than last month’s forecast, and the marketing year average farm price is forecast in a range of $10.95 to $12.45, compared to last month’s projection of $10.70 to $12.70.”(Note that a summary of key variables for corn from yesterday’s WASDE report is available here, while a soybean summary can be found here).Yesterday’s update pointed out that, “Prices were expected to decline sharply following the release of the reports since the trade did not anticipate the estimates very well. The progress of the South American corn and soybean crops will now be a major focus of the markets.”AP writer Roxana Hegeman reported yesterday that, “Wheat prices tumbled Thursday as a government report showed the nation’s farmers had planted winter wheat on much more of their land this season amid last year’s higher prices and easing drought conditions in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.“Across the country, the amount of winter wheat planted for harvest in 2012 was estimated at 41.9 million acres, the National Agricultural Statistics Service reported Thursday. That is an increase of 3 percent from 2011 and up 12 percent from 2010.”In a more general summary of the implications of the data contained in yesterday’s government reports, Ian Berry and Scott Kilman reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Higher global grain supplies could signal more downward pressure on food prices after an influential U.S. government report pointed to larger-than-expected domestic stocks and lifted harvest estimates for Europe and Asia.“A raft of monthly and quarterly reports released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture eased concerns about the impact of drought on crops in South America, sending ripples through the agribusiness sector as grain futures fell sharply.”Likewise, Gregory Meyer and Emiko Terazono reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “[T]he US reported that its domestic production and stocks of corn, a key commodity for the global food chain, were higher than previously thought, sending prices sharply down.”The FT article added that, “Darrel Good, agricultural economist at the University of Illinois, said consumers would see stable food prices. ‘The increase in commodity prices that we have experienced in recent years has now been pretty much fully passed through to the consumer.’”The AP reported yesterday that, “Pricier corn has been a key driver of food inflation this year. When grain prices rise, food processors and meat companies tend to pass on the higher costs to consumers. It usually takes about six months for changes in corn prices to trickle all the way down to the retail level.“The USDA estimates that food prices rose between 3.25 percent and 3.75 percent last year.“The USDA predicts that food inflation will slow, dropping to between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent for all of 2012, according to its most recent estimate.”Meanwhile, Bloomberg writer Rudy Ruitenberg reported yesterday that, “World food prices fell to a 14-month low in December, led by declines in grains, sugar and oilseeds, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization said.“An index of 55 food items fell 2.4 percent to 211 points from a revised 216.1 points in November, the Rome-based FAO said on its website today. The month-earlier figure was revised from 215 points, while October was restated at 215.8 points from 216.“Food prices will probably decline this year, Jose Graziano da Silva, who became FAO director general this month, said Jan. 3.”In other developments, a news release yesterday from University of Missouri Extension stated that, “Against a backdrop of economic uncertainty, U.S. agriculture last year stood as a shining example of growth.“2011 set records, with net farm income topping $100 billion for the first time ever.“‘Prices are up across the board for all the major crops, and while we’ve seen cost of production increases overall, they haven’t increased as rapidly as the prices of crops people are selling,’ said Pat Westhoff, director of the University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). ‘Even corrected for inflation, farm profits are at or near the highest levels since the 1970s. That is indeed a very good outcome overall.’”After additional analysis, yesterday’s news item concluded by pointing out: “‘There are lots of things that could go wrong in front of us, and instead of $5-$6 corn, $3-$4 corn could return,’ Westhoff said. ‘We’re very much in a volatile situation, and what people think about the markets today will be different than six months or a year from now.’”Policy IssuesAs noted earlier, Rep. Collin Peterson was a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program. In addition to remarks on USDA budget developments, Rep. Peterson also explained how he sees the next Farm Bill progressing (audio- 4:35).And Rep. Peterson also discussed proposed changes in dairy policy in more detail (audio- 2:52).In other policy news, Reuters writer Sybille de La Hamaide reported earlier this week that, “The world body in charge of fighting animal diseases called for action against widespread abuse of antibiotics in livestock farming, which leads to drug-resistant bacteria, but warned on Wednesday that a ban would leave the world short of protein.“‘The use of antibiotics is today essential to ensure sufficient animal production to feed the planet. Without antibiotics there would supply problems of animal protein for the human population,’ Bernard Vallat, director of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) told a news conference.”Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times editorial board opined today that, “When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricted the routine use of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins in livestock, it picked an easy target. The agency’s move is better than nothing, but nonetheless it is a reminder of the FDA’s achingly slow and timid efforts to wean agriculture off the overuse of important medications. Call it a tiptoe forward after a recent giant step in the other direction and a long era of standing in one place.”BiofuelsThe editorial board at the Chicago Tribune stated yesterday that, “As 2011 gave way to 2012, Congress let tax credits and import protections expire for one of its most pampered industries: ethanol. Now, there’s a good reason for fireworks on New Year’s Eve.“For decades, the motor fuel brewed from corn has enjoyed an uninterrupted run of corporate welfare. That’s finally being curbed. But don’t think Congress has entirely put economic and fiscal realities in front of political calculations. The ethanol industry still has plenty of influence and plenty of government-directed advantages in the market.”The Tribune pointed out that, “Example: Back in the boom time of the mid-2000s, technology entrepreneur Vinod Khosla led an investment group that convinced the Feds to put up $46.3 million in grants and $42 million in loan guarantees for a factory in Georgia that would turn wood pulp into ethanol.“The plant went bust last year. The shuttered facility has just been sold for $5.1 million … to another Khosla-affiliated group, which pledges to use it for a different alternative fuel operation. No wonder Khosla is a billionaire and Uncle Sam is $15 trillion in debt.”The unusually lengthy editorial also indicated that, “Alas, the cellulosic ethanol industry has received an estimated $1.5 billion in federal subsidies … and come up dry. No cellulosic ethanol is being produced in commercial quantities. Not a drop. Even Solyndra, the infamous green-energy company that burned through hundreds of millions in tax subsidies, at least sold some solar panels.“This page understands that government support for research and development is crucial to American innovation. No one expects a perfect track record. No one expects technological breakthroughs to proceed on a convenient timetable. But buying into the same promises, again and again? What a waste.“The government shows no sign of turning off the cellulosic-ethanol spigot. Last month, the Energy Department approved $80 million for a wood-to-ethanol plant in Michigan. So the bureaucrats who backed Georgia pine (See: Khosla, Vinod) with your money now are betting your money on Michigan hardwood,” the editorial said.Keith GoodNews Archive
We believe that America's farmers and ranchers will support the most enlightened governmental policies when given timely, accurate and complete information. Therefore, it is our goal to make available to them at no cost the same information that is used by lawmakers and USDA officials.
aloha.aloha.
- Permalink Reply by on
- ETC. (More Toxins in the News)...................everyone living near gas stations needs to check if contamination is leaking there............plus independent groups testing the groundwater is also necessary.............aloha.
- *************************************************
http://www.cornucopia.org/