Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law

Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama

We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Feinstein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congress to authorize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain 

US citizens.

Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.

“We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if you were an American citizen or here legally in the country, you would get a trial by jury,” Paul said. “It’s been removed because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country. This is so fundamentally wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a country that it can’t go unnoticed.”

The problem with Paul’s assertion is that there was no protection for anyone, whether they are a citizen of the US, a permanent resident or a visitor. Rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution be damned! Neither the NDAA, nor the amendment proposed protected one person who is on American Soil.

Paul called the NDAA an “abomination.” It is that, but so was the Feinstein amendment and even more so because it was deceptive at its core.

The Senate easily passed NDAA 2013 by a vote of 81-14. The next stop is Obama’s desk.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/indefinite-military-detention-of-us-citizens-to-be-signed-into-law-by-obama/#ixzz2GFoVw1nQ

Monsanto Banned from EU - US approves genetically-modified corn sales?

Filed under WTF....

EU: France Asks To Ban Monsanto's 810 Corn GMO Crop From EU

BRUSSELS –  The European Commission received a request by France to ban the cultivation of Monsanto 810, a type of genetically-modified corn crop that has been grown in the European Union for 15 years, a spokesman said Tuesday.

"France yesterday sent a message to the European Commission indicating that they had new scientific information on Monsanto 810 and so they requested the commission to take urgent steps to ban the cultivation of this crop," the spokesman said.

The French government said Monday said it has asked the Commission to suspend the authorization to grow genetically-modified corn crops.

Copyright © 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/21/eu-france-asks-to-ban-monsantos-810-corn-gmo-crop-from-eu/#ixzz1nWEhyOZH

Monsanto genetically engineered corn approved for sale in U.S.
Washington - Monsanto has been given the go-ahead to sell its genetically engineered, drought-resistant corn after the Obama administration quietly approved the variety, with the announcement being made during December’s Christmas break.

Read more: [link to www.digitaljournal.com] 

Washington - Monsanto has been given the go-ahead to sell its genetically engineered, drought-resistant corn after the Obama administration quietly approved the variety, with the announcement being made during December’s Christmas break.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the controversial product after Monsanto submitted a petition for its approval in 2009. Monsanto maintains 40 percent of North American crop losses occur as a result of sub-optimal moisture.

In a news release, Monsanto states the GE corn, MON 87460, carries the drought-tolerant trait to help maintain yield potential during drought stress.

“Our drought system is designed to help farmers mitigate the risk of yield loss when experiencing drought stress, primarily in areas of annual drought stress,” said Hobart Beeghly, Monsanto’s U.S. product management lead, in the company statement. “This spring farmers in the Western Great Plains will have an opportunity to see how the system performs on their farm through on-farm trials.”

Development of Monsanto’s drought-tolerant trait was part of a joint effort with Germany’s chemical giant, BASF.

In a determination (pdf) of Monsanto’s GE corn, the USDA states the

corn and progeny derived from it are unlikely to pose plant pest risks and is no longer to be considered regulated article under APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulations.

According to the USDA, the determination was based on its analyses of field and laboratory data submitted by Monsanto, among other relevant information.

The USDA goes on to note MON 87460 corn and its progeny

would have no significant impacts, individually or collectively, on the quality of the human environment and will have no effect on federally listed threatened or endangered species, species proposed for listing, or their designated or proposed critical habitats.

The USDA states on its website (pdf) the basic charge of its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is “Protecting American Agriculture,” and adds the U.S. government has been regulating genetically engineered (GE) organisms since 1986.

The Cornucopia Institute notes the USDA received almost 45,000 public comments opposed to MON 87460, with only 23 comments in favor.

“President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack just sent a clear message to the American public that they do not care about our concerns with genetically engineered food and their questionable safety, adverse environmental impacts, and detrimental effects on farmers, especially organic farmers,” said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst with Cornucopia, in a news release.

Also in the pipeline for genetically modified food is a corn by Dow which is being engineered to be more resistant to 2,4-D, a poisonous herbicide most famous for its being a primary ingredient in Agent Orange, prolifically used during the Vietnam War for defoliating forests and croplands.

In addition to announcing Monsanto’s approval, the USDA is taking public comments on Dow’s 2,4-D corn here.

Monsanto recently made other news when Canada’s NGO Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conservation (ETC Group) released a report on the growing green economy, which noted large corporations, such as Monsanto, Dow, Exxon, BP, BASF, and the U.S. military, among others, are positioning themselves as conglomerates over who will control biomass development, DNA data generation, and other vital areas of the bioeconomy movement.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/317358#ixzz1nWCoVx7z

Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning

French beekeepers demonstrate to protest the use of genetically-modified organisms in front of French Monsanto headquarters in Bron. Sign reads, "Principle of Precaution = No to GMO". (Reuters / Robert Pratta)

A French court ruled that a controversial US biotech company Monsanto is guilty of unintentional chemical poisoning of a French farmer. The verdict sets a French precedent for pesticide-poisoning and more cases are expected to follow.

Grain farmer Paul Francois, says he suffered a number of neurological problems, including memory loss, stammering and headaches, after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso weed killer in 2004. He blamed the company for failing to provide adequate warning labels on its products.

"I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this,"Reuters quoted Francois as saying. 

The present case is not the first of its kind. All previous health claims have reportedly failed because of the difficulties with proving the links between health issues and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals. Francois’s claims appeared to be easier to substantiate because he could describe a particular incident – the inhaling of a particular pesticide while cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer. The man was only able to obtain his work invalidity status after a court appeal.

The court in Lyon has now ordered experts to establish the sum of damages. Monsanto’s lawyers have not commented since the court’s ruling.

French authorities claim that they are getting around 200 pesticides-related alerts per year. As few as 47 cases have been officially recognized in the past decade.

Paul Francois’s case dates back to when EU countries actively used crop-protection chemicals. Many have now been banned, and the European Union is targeting a further reduction in pesticide use. Monsanto’s Lasso is now considered dangerous in many EU countries. In France, it was withdrawn in 2007.

France's health and environment safety agency ANSES is reportedly conducting a study on farming-related health issues. The results are expected next year.

The Monsanto company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation which is particularly famous for its genetically modified products and herbicides. It is also notable for its involvement in high-profile lawsuits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of them were related to health damage caused by Monsanto’s products.

US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists.  That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade. 

The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply.  In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country.

The astonishing details, from Opposing Views:

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet. 

Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure.

Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution:

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society. 

Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it. 

Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharialaw. 

As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment:

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws.  This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs.  Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ”to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.” 

In other news, enraged Catholics reacted to the sight of an atheist parading around as the Zombie Pope by stifling yawns. source:

Catholics vs. health care law

Catholics vs. health care law **

Holy war over health care law? Obama angers Catholic leaders

By Ed Henry

Published January 31, 2012 | FoxNews.com

While President Obama will deliver another speech on the economy Wednesday in Northern Virginia to keep the focus on jobs, Catholic leaders across the country are warning another issue may blow up in his face come November.

Catholics are fired up over new rules implementing Obama's health care reform law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -- even though that violates church teachings.

"When you push people of faith and you tell them the government is going to knock down the wall of separation of church and state and overreach like the Obama administration, you've got a war on your hands," Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told Fox News.

In an extraordinary move this past weekend, New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan and other archbishops throughout the nation had their priests read letters denouncing the Obama administration policy from the pulpit at Sunday Mass.

"Never before has the government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," Dolan said in a web video that takes the battle online. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. How about letting our elected leaders know that we want religious liberty and rights of consciences restored and the administration's mandate rescinded? We can't afford to strike out on this one."

Pressed on the matter at his daily briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated several times the administration believes it struck an "appropriate balance" in crafting the policy.

"The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services," said Carney. "We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns."

Even some Catholic Democrats are not buying that claim, however, with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne ripping the policy in a Washington Post column. Dionne charged Monday that the president "utterly botched" the issue and "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus."

As The Brotherhood Takes Office

As The Brotherhood Takes Office Can we Keep Faith with the People?

by Shoshana Bryen

An Egyptian man chants pro-democracy slogans during a rally outside the Egyptian Embassy in London to mark the one-year anniversary of the beginning of protests in Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012. (Photo:AP)

In London, hundreds of Egyptians stood in front of the Egyptian embassy, with some speeches calling for solidarity with the Egyptian people and other revolutions of the Arab Spring, condemning Western meddling in some Arab nations.

The Egyptian Parliament re-opened this week with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge and the Salafists in second place. Googling liberals were far behind. It is not surprising as the vast majority of Egyptians are rural, poor, and religious, but since majority rule should never be confused with democracy, the Obama administration is in a tight spot.

The U.S. wants western-style capitalism and free markets in a country that looks and acts like ours. The State Department appears to believe it is America's job to tell the Brotherhood what it wants and what it expects.

Spokesperson Victoria Nuland said Deputy Secretary of State William Burns' meeting with the Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi was, "an opportunity to reinforce U.S. expectations that Egypt's new government will support human rights, women's rights and religious tolerance and support Egypt's peace treaty with Israel." CNN reported that Burns' message was, "We want to work with your government. We want a meaningful partnership that fully accepts your government and we want to work with you on your primary goal, which is economic development as long as we feel you are building a democracy that respects human rights and freedom and supports regional peace."

Mr. Burns may believe that economic development should be the Brotherhood's "primary goal," and national survival may bring it to the top of the list right now, but the Muslim Brotherhood stands for the establishment of an Islamic society based on its understanding of God's requirements for man. Mr. Burns is likely to be disappointed when those requirements don't include universalized "human rights and freedom" or "regional peace" for Israel.

In Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, and Iran, not to mention Hezbollah and Hamas, the best organized groups are in political ascendance—and they are also the ones who deeply reject American political, moral, and social standards. They believe in an international Islamist revival, and it underestimates them to assume they are closet capitalists and free-thinkers.

We cannot demand and should not expect, but the United States has had experience dealing rationally with countries whose systems of government do not include democratic norms and principles, placing ourselves on the side of the people and ensuring that both the rulers and the dissidents know where we stand.

We've done the Cold War.

After decades of ignoring Soviet depredations against their own people, and an uncomfortable experience as wartime allies, the occupation of Central Europe made it impossible to accept the Soviet system as compatible with our own. Certainly we recognized the Soviet Union, talked to it, negotiated with it, traded in some measure with it, and generally tried to avoid war with it. But we also generally did our best to defend against it, restrict it, deny it victories, and keep faith with its people.

Our diplomats knew the names of dissidents and prisoners, and they asked about them in Moscow—and Secretary of State George Shultz's 1987 Moscow Seder was an extraordinary moment for the West. We had trade restrictions, the Helsinki process, COCOM, and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe to tell prisoners of communism the news of the West and the news of their own countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the dissidents said, "We knew you were there; we knew you were on our side."

That is a huge point. During the Cold War, we were good at the distinction between the people and their government. We didn't expect the Soviet government to be like us, but only to know that we were watching and their choices would cost them.

Our Western heritage—not so much electoral politics, but free speech, rule of law, free market economics, independent judiciaries, property rights, and tolerance—is, in fact, responsive to the economic and social conditions confronted by people across the Middle East and North Africa. But while the U.S. demands that Egypt and others be "democratic" and tolerant, we pay only lip service to the universal benefits of Western Civilization, primarily by supporting the winners of referendums masquerading as elections.

Victorious Islamist governments are unlikely to listen to the message of the West, but many people in the region want us and need us. If we don't see the active assertion of our values as part of our policy, future generations in the Arab world will fall farther and farther behind economically and socially.

The West is in a difficult twilight period with the Middle Eastern Arab world plus Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; not so much a "long war" as a "cold war." There are no military answers or easy "soft" answers, but scholar and author Robert Kaplan drew up a concise set of priorities for our government to manage as we go forward:

1.     Regime type matters. Authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, face uprisings and should not be considered stable partners. To the extent that they permit joint economic activity within the rule of law, we can work with them for the benefit of their people.

2.     Military matters. American influence in the world is proportional to our ability to protect our interests. As we plan to draw down in the Middle East and "pivot" toward Asia, we have to ensure that we have sufficient resources for defense.

3.     Europe matters. Despite their current economic problems and ours, they are the "go to" ally. China doesn't appear to want the responsibilities that go with economic clout, nor does India. Brazil and Turkey have not been helpful, and their longevity as rising economic powers is unclear, and finally,

4.   America matters. No one else is us. Unless we abdicate our leadership, we can exercise it. And we should. source: