Who Hijacked Our Country

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

The “No on I-522” Campaign: a Guide to the Skankiest Prostitutes

If you’re a resident of Washington State, you’ve already been swamped with brochures and TV/radio ads warning about the “dangers” of Initiative 522.  If you live in California, I-522 is the same as Proposition 37:  requiring food labels to say whether or not their products contain any genetically modified organisms (GMO).  Food companies have been required to label all of their ingredients since at least the early 1970s.  What’s different about GMO products?  What’s the GMO syndicate trying to hide?

California’s Prop. 37 was way ahead in the polls, until Monsanto spent tens of jillions of dollars to scare California voters.  It worked.  Prop. 37 ended up losing.  And now Monsanto and its allies are flooding Washington with gazillions of dollars worth of lies, hoping to defeat I-522.

As of now, I-522 is heavily favored by the public.  We’ll have to hope Washington voters will be smarter than their California counterparts.

Monsanto has a long reach.  It has more tentacles than anyone ever imagined.  Monsanto’s little black book is a Who’s Who of highly paid prostitutes.  The Seattle Times had a full page editorial last Sunday urging a “No” vote on I-522.  I wonder how much they got paid for that, and who paid it?

A former Washington attorney general, Ken Eikenberry, is one of the ringleaders of the No on I-522 campaign.  How the mighty have fallen.  He once held one of the highest elective offices in a large progressive state.  Now he’s spending his retirement years sucking Monsanto’s dick.  How sad is that.

Another large contributor to the No on I-522 campaign is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).  The GMA is like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — basically just a huge money launderer.  The GMA has  donated $2.2 million to the No on I-522 campaign.  And they’ve refused to name the food companies whose money this is.  These companies want to purchase an election but they’re afraid to crawl out from under their rocks and show us who they are.  Enter the money launderer.

And it gets worse.  Monsanto and the GMA even have a judge listed in their little black book.  Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham not only ruled against a group that had filed a suit to find out the anonymous donors to the GMA — he also fined the plaintiff $10,000 for having filed the lawsuit.  The plaintiff — Moms For Labeling — was also ordered to pay GMA’s court costs in addition to the $10,000 fine.  Moms For Labeling’s attorney said:

“This sets an incredibly scary precedent for future concerned citizens who speak out against powerful corporations who violate our public disclosure laws.”

Scary indeed.

Labels: , , , , ,


Blogger Jerry Critter said...

If GMOs are so safe, why not let us know which foods contain them? Conservatives preach personal responsibility. Let us take personal responsibility. Give us the choice to eat GMO food or not.

October 8, 2013 at 8:37 PM  
Blogger Demeur said...

But but they told me GMOs were good for you. It'll put hair on your palms.

October 9, 2013 at 10:25 AM  
Blogger jim marquis said...

I love our state. Gay marriage, legal pot, GMO notification and good football teams. We rock.

October 9, 2013 at 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Jess said...

The way they write up the initiatives here Tom, confuse the low information voter. Now that should be a lwa, when you want to put something on the ballot make it easy for a person to make a deicision and don't throw in a bunch of legalese bullshit to muddy it up.

October 10, 2013 at 5:38 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jerry: Gotta love Monsanto's "reasoning." GMOs are a great invention, a boon to mankind, but we don't want you to know when it's in your food.

Demeur: It thought it was something else that put hair on people's palms.

Jim: Yup, Washington rocks.

Jess: I think that's always a problem with initiatives. That paves the way for low information voters to be swayed by whoever has the slickest ads.

October 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

If GMOs are auxh a great development they should want us to know they are in our food, or so it seems to me.

October 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM  
Blogger Life As I Know It Now said...

We are all a bunch of lab rats and the experiment is what exactly GMOs will do to us. Almost all the corn and soy is now GMO and has been for quite a while now.

October 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jerry: That's what I'd do. If I had a new invention that I thought was great, I'd be touting it and wanting everybody to know when they're using it. But that's just me.

Life: Yup, we're all guinea pigs. Corn and soy are the most corrupted, like you said. I avoid most grains anyway, not just because of GMOs, but because they've been generally turned into Frankenfoods over the past few decades (wheat especially).

October 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the result of I-522 effects consumers and producers then why would a company such as Monsanto care one way or another? Because it could seriously impact their bottom line of course. It should be transparent as to who is pulling the strings and why. Even if the new law has flaws it's a step in the right direction.

October 26, 2013 at 7:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home