Barbara H. Peterson

Buy orlistat once daily

Thought that endorsing Romney was bad enough? In another turn of events that exposes the corporatist leanings of Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, he has voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.” The following is taken from the United States Senate Website.


Hat tip to Jon Abrahamson for sending us these results!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

101 Responses to “Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling”

  1. Cyndi feigenbaum says:

    Just want to say for clarification I have no like for Neo Cons and turn coats like Rand Paul.
    Further if anyone has or wants to discuss practical philosophy you can always email me. I would rather communicate privately since these ideas are seminal and need to be smoothed out for consumption and commmunication. I have been influenced by the philosophers Ronald Coase and Tom Fishbeck. Of course I love Ron Paul, Tom Fishbeck believes land ownership should not be territorial based but a description of what is in and on the land. Ronald Coase’s Problem of Social Cost is helpful reading.

  2. dale says:

    Thank you Lisa.

  3. Lisa says:

    DAle.

    I like Richard wolfe and I like David Bolliar and his stance on the commons. I am new to politics, but everything you say seems to make sense on a deeper level than anything I have heard. I think Im going to have my libertarian friend read your post..thanks

  4. dale says:

    Lisa, you make some good points critiquing GM0’s, but you say Rand Paul is all for freedom but fail to define what that means. Freedom is probably the word most favored by propagandist, for who could be against freedom? Hitler talked of Freedom; Stalin talked of Freedom; all dictators justify their tyrannies by asserting that they are protecting freedom.

    But what is freedom. Here is my minimal definition: freedom is the ability to make an informed decision from a broad range of options. If you are only allowed peas or beans, you don’t have much freedom. If you are only allowed to vote for A or B, prechosen by the wealthy establishment, you have a very restricted freedom. For instance, in America, 3d parties are doomed to irrelevance, despite offering more choices, by both the winner takes all scheme (which limits choices to A or B) and the fact that 94% of all elections are won by the party with the most money. 3d parties are not corporate sponsored so they always lose. This drastically restricts choice and limits freedom.

    The other essential factor in a robust freedom is information. If you do not have information (is that corn GMO or not? No seller will label it as GMO, knowing that most people don’t want GM0s…so the voluntary system fails), you cannot make a rational choice. Free market theory, as the libertarians proclaim, assumed what is not the case, namely a fully informed public.

    In fact, commercial propaganda (advertising) and government propaganda and corporate media propaganda often seek to distract or misinform the consumer. In California, a month back, the tax on tobacco which was to fund research on cancer cures, which had a 75% approval a few months back, lost because big tobacco poured in tens of millions to manipulate public opinion. MOst ads did not even mention that the proposition was about tobacco but said:

    More spending
    More bureaucracy
    More money for Sacramento.

    And so the 3/4 approval of tax on tobacco lost, based on deceptive propaganda. Vote NO (whatever it is). The other ad I saw said “and not one penny for cancer treatment (cigarettes kill 400,000 a year)” with mock outrage. Yes the money was for research for cures, which would then lead to treatment, but this vital information was buried.

    And so informed consent or rational choice among a broad range of options is perverted. This leads to a constriction of freedom.

    Now requiring truth in advertising, which the Senate prohibited to the states, is essential for rational choice, and when Rand Paul voted to prohibit states from requiring labeling (it didn’t ban growing or selling GMOs, only required they be labled), he not only violated the libertarian concept of state’s rights but he stripped consumers from the information needed to make a rational choice, which is the bedrock of freedom.

    Therefore, his vote imposed federal tyranny over state’s rights (to legislate for the benefit of citizens) and stripped us all of the right to know whether our food is GMO or not. Voluntary labeling will not work: you don’t find food labeled GMO very often, tho you do sometimes see non-GMO. But that ear of corn is unlabeled and so you have no basis for a rational choice: you are robbed of freedom.

    Libertarians, in general, support corporate control, while denying government the ability to restrain corporate control. Paul voted to continue the 20 billion a year subsidy to Big Oil.

    But he preaches against corporate welfare. This is hypocrisy, and his concept of freedom denies us all the right to know what is in our food, which takes away our freedom of an informed and rational decision.

    It is worth noting that libertarianism was not orignally a rightwing movement, as it is today. It was started by the non-Marxist socialists of the 19th Century, who envisioned a worker owned and controlled economy independent of the state. When Marxists proposed capturing the bourgoise state (the instrument of the ruling capitalist class) to transition to socialism, the non-Marxist socialists protested, maintaining that the state historially restricted freedom. Thus libertarianism was born in defiance of both the state, the capitalist ruling class, and the Marxist concept of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    Later, the defiance of corporate control (which would become fascism in the 30’s, the merging of state and corporate interests, in short state capitalism, which all modern states now have, was dropped, and the pro-corporatocracy libertarian right wing movement was born. Rand Pauls vote to give Big Oil (record profits in some cases of 40 BILLION a year (often with no taxes or tax refunds!) shows that he is pro-corporate welfare, despite his rhetoric.

    Rightwing libertarianism is a cover for corporate control of the political process and the economy. It is not about freedom for ordinary people but freedom for corporations and the wealthy.

    The old socialist vision of economic democracy, anti-state and anti-corporations, is still alive in what is called left libertariansim, socialist libertarianism, or libertarian socialism (also called voluntary socialism, to distinguish from state socialism, which is actually state capitalism). World class intellectuals like the late Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and
    Richard Wolfe all embrace the left libertarian vision of a society ruled neither by a tyrannical state nor tyrannical corporations but owned and run by the workers themselves.

    The corporate media bans this option (thus restricting freedom) from the airwaves: no corporate media will give these intellectuals (which world polls show to be the most respected intellectuals in America) a voice. Only non-corporate independent media (5% of the media) gives them a platform.

    Freedom is word used to manipulate people to support programs that take away their freedom. Rand Paul’s vote on GMO labeling is an example of this deception. He is just another pawn of the corporations; he depends on them for funding, and he serves them just like every other corrupt politician.

    Freedom? No, prohibiting truth in advertising is the death of freedom for without vital information, no informed choice is possible. Rand Paul is a phony. His vote on labeling and his support for corporate welfare to the richest corporations in all history both demonstrate his loyalty to his corporate masters and his contempt for the “sovereign consumer” or the ordinary citizen seeking to make intelligent choices.

    The only way to renew freedom is to restrain the National Security State (but Ron Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan!) and the corporations which control the political process thru pols like Paul, whom they bribe with contributions in exchange for favorable votes. The state in so far as it restrains corporate tyranny (as in buying elections, trading campaign contributions for special favors, etc) must be strengthened. Right wing libertarians end up just supporting Republican policies while duping naive followers with hollow rhetoric about freedom.

  5. dale says:

    Lisa, you make some good points critiquing GM0’s, but you say Rand Paul is all for freedom but fail to define what that means. Freedom is probably the word most favored by propagandist, for who could be against freedom? Hitler talked of Freedom; Stalin talked of Freedom; all dictators justify their tyrannies by asserting that they are protecting freedom.

    But what is freedom. Here is my minimal definition: freedom is the ability to make an informed decision from a broad range of options. If you are only allowed peas or beans, you don’t have much freedom. If you are only allowed to vote for A or B, prechosen by the wealthy establishment, you have a very restricted freedom. For instance, in America, 3d parties are doomed to irrelevance, despite offering more choices, by both the winner takes all scheme (which limits choices to A or B) and the fact that 94% of all elections are won by the party with the most money. 3d parties are not corporate sponsored so they always lose. This drastically restricts choice and limits freedom.

    The other essential factor in a robust freedom is information. If you do not have information (is that corn GMO or not? No seller will label it as GMO, knowing that most people don’t want GM0s…so the voluntary system fails), you cannot make a rational choice. Free market theory, as the libertarians proclaim, assumed what is not the case, namely a fully informed public.

    In fact, commercial propaganda (advertising) and government propaganda and corporate media propaganda often seek to distract or misinform the consumer. In California, a month back, the tax on tobacco which was to fund research on cancer cures, which had a 75% approval a few months back, lost because big tobacco poured in tens of millions to manipulate public opinion. MOst ads did not even mention that the proposition was about tobacco but said:

    More spending
    More bureaucracy
    More money for Sacramento.

    And so the 3/4 approval of tax on tobacco lost, based on deceptive propaganda. Vote NO (whatever it is). The other ad I saw said “and not one penny for cancer treatment (cigarettes kill 400,000 a year)” with mock outrage. Yes the money was for research for cures, which would then lead to treatment, but this vital information was buried.

    And so informed consent or rational choice among a broad range of options is perverted. This leads to a constriction of freedom.

    Now requiring truth in advertising, which the Senate prohibited to the states, is essential for rational choice, and when Rand Paul voted to prohibit states from requiring labeling (it didn’t ban growing or selling GMOs, only required they be labled), he not only violated the libertarian concept of state’s rights but he stripped consumers from the information needed to make a rational choice, which is the bedrock of freedom.

    Therefore, his vote imposed federal tyranny over state’s rights (to legislate for the benefit of citizens) and stripped us all of the right to know whether our food is GMO or not. Voluntary labeling will not work: you don’t find food labeled GMO very often, tho you do sometimes see non-GMO. But that ear of corn is unlabeled and so you have no basis for a rational choice: you are robbed of freedom.

    Libertarians, in general, support corporate control, while denying government the ability to restrain corporate control. Paul voted to continue the 20 billion a year subsidy to Big Oil.

    But he preaches against corporate welfare. This is hypocrisy, and his concept of freedom denies us all the right to know what is in our food, which takes away our freedom of an informed and rational decision.

    It is worth noting that libertarianism was not orignally a rightwing movement, as it is today. It was started by the non-Marxist socialists of the 19th Century, who envisioned a worker owned and controlled economy independent of the state. When Marxists proposed capturing the bourgoise state (the instrument of the ruling capitalist class) to transition to socialism, the non-Marxist socialists protested, maintaining that the state historially restricted freedom. Thus libertarianism was born in defiance of both the state, the capitalist ruling class, and the Marxist concept of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    Later, the defiance of corporate control (which would become fascism in the 30’s, the merging of state and corporate interests, in short state capitalism, which all modern states now have, was dropped, and the pro-corporatocracy libertarian right wing movement was born. Rand Pauls vote to give Big Oil (record profits in some cases of 40 BILLION

  6. Lisa says:

    It shouldnt surprise you that Rand Paul voted in the manner he did. He is a libertarian. Which means he is for freedom. Meaning if someone lives somewhere and wants to grow or consume GMOs they should have the right.. Also if someone doesnt want to grow or eat GMOS they should have the right as well. whether or not he is corrupted or bought out by corporate interests.. I have no idea. Another issue he may not even realize is that gmo s contaminate, leaving the freedom to chose non gmos in danger. Perhaps he figures thats not his problem.. Fighting for freedom is his one and only problem. BUT maybe he doesnt see the unfair monopoly of huge conglomerate businesses taking from the average citizen ability to choose from real varieties and choices.. Thats the problem with the libertarians… they are so set to freedom, and have their blinders on that they see everything in black and white.. they cannot comprehend the entire issue.

  7. dale says:

    In response to Barbara, someone wrote ” Thats why the market never produces unlabelled products! WEll, the corn, etc. are not labled (unless organic) and even putting your company name on a vegetable does not give me the information I need to make an informed decision (my definition of freedom).

    The author is very confused, unable to separate thoughts, and so throws in together right wing market libertarians with socialist libertarians like Chomsky.

    Prohibiting states from requiring truth in advertising (falsely claimed as volunatarily universal…just go to your produce section and check for yourself if this is true) is tyranny, not requiring truth in labeling.

    If men were angels, there would be no need for government. But men, including ag produces and vendors, are not angels and therefore we need government to require them to label honestly.

    We have a right to know what trumps any other legal quibbles.

  8. Unlabelled Products says:

    I guess nobody can understand or rap their heads around this. Barbara Patterson asked me do I want unlabelled products? Really? The answer is NO. Neeither does anyone else!!!!! Thats why the market never produces unlabelled products!!!! Why do we need the gov to dowhat the market already does. Ludwig Von Mises had it right in a free situation the consumer reigns.
    The issue is do you want a free society or do you want a totalitarian one. Sorry you can not mix freedom and tyranny. Take your cake. My last post stands. Labelling is part of the finished product that the producer is liable for. We all try to show that we are the best. If we leap out and proclaim (detailed label info) it we better be able to back it up with our product being what we say it is. That is the description we give it. This is a complicated subject in fact however it the truth that will lead us into a free society. The kernel ideas are important.
    It will take me a while to explain the this but it is rather simple. Norms are cultural community base. That means we all agree what 2% Milk is or what Goats milk Kefir is. If a person is selling Raw Milk. We as a group and as individuals must agree what we expect out of the producer if we are willing to consume their product where they will not be sued if we get poisoned. You see the market is a two way street. The market is everything. We the consumers and the producers should be able to work these matters out, ex-ante. We the consumers make the rules and we set them forth to the producers. Then the producers feel comfortable in followinmg our guidelines so they wont be sued. Whether we pay for the testing or they do. The cost of testing to reduce mutual risk will be shared in the cost of the final product. By the way if there is no testingthen the producer of the raw milk will likely be sued. If the issue is buyer beware then the consumer must let the producer no that they are aware that testing is necessary. In the end the consumer will pay for the cosrt in the product. In true capitalism as Mises said the CONSUMER REIGNS! This is what we must teach for. In a free world producers and consumers work together. The political system as we have it set up here in this country is the wrong way to establish great products like Raw Milk Goats Kefir or a Hydrogen Powered car.
    Again I assert labelling with Mansanto is not the issue. The consumer always seeks the better product that they would like to enjoy and that is a product labelled non GMO. The real issue here again is a tresspassing issue.
    Infact me as an educated consumer might believe that GMO’s are more hardy and better products and I would love to buy them. Bio Tech is a good thing. But the issue is much deeper here. Nobody should pollute another person (with their seed) and then make me the violated producer of non hybrid seed culpable. The issue is about law. It makes me angry that the courts can not see this. To understand why and to unravel the trespass issue will take some time. I as a procer of non hybrid seed have a right to left alone and to be not harrassed by Monsanto. The issue is as simple as that. It should stop there.omethings (most things) are to simple for the Judges, Lawyers , politicians and Political meddlers. In a legal battle between Mansanto and producers of non hybrid seed the non hybrid seed manufacturer might or might not be able to show damages. The question should Mansanto have to pay for the removal of their hybrid seed, arises. That is again a complex question. Altered Genetics does not necessaily show injury. The final Monsanto product might not be bad. But why as a producer have we to put up with Mansantoes seeds. I as a producer have faith in my Non GMO seed. My roduct should not be contaminated with their invasion.
    About Rand Paul. I have no love for sellout NeoCons. Politics is a mean and dirty game. The issue here was not that dirty turn coat. Please do not make me sick. I am beginning to get old and am resisting my self to throw around political slogans. My dream for Pres Ron Paul/Kevin Zeese 2012. Read Ronald Coase, Noam Chomsky, Karl Hess, and Murray Rothbard. These are my mentors.

  9. Nonames Please I want to work says:

    OMG I’m “freak en shocked”. Cindy lol someone is paying you to say that stuff right? Cindy please understand I’m not attacking you I’m going to attack your programing. I truly wonder where you got this programing from, if your not a paid shill I am shocked.

    “In a competitive market with legal tort law legally enforced, no forced speech is not required.”

    I understand what you are saying. Work’s fine with non-food items like bolts. If a Global Corporation which by law only motive is profit, again by law is above country above family above all values #1 by law is profit! If it has some 30 cent an hour Chinese labor units manufacture bolts and a buyer asked what grade they are and they in writing advise they are grade 8 bolts and the passenger jet the bolts ended up in wings fell off. Well their will be hell to pay! The corporation’s stock value will plummet the officers of the corporation will be criminally charged, if Chinese executed on the spot in a nice new mobile execution chamber. In time all is forgotten new officers have straighten out the ship, cheaper labor units have been found and new lower prices abound. The major stock holders held on and value has recovered. All is again good in corporatocracy world oh all but for the passengers who felt safe in that jet, their still dead and the children they would have had will not be a tax dollar support issue.

    But this is Food were talking about here Cindy! Not just materials. Corporations are people too! What if? GMO we know in time like Fukushima radiation will kill millions? I know there was 0 chance of a corporation going down with the consumers on that jet so why require any labeling of bolt grade.

    We don’t need rid of our government Cindy. We need to seize the power of our government back from MONSANTO, we need to remove “Corporate person-hood”. Corporations do not support Freedom and Democracy Cindy. Look at their favorite place to setup shop a totalitarian CHINA. See corporations do not care if you are free and happy or dead, just profit.

    What is the reason we are a Nation State what is the idea behind what our economy should do Cindy?

    The united States is for us the people rich and poor alike. Corporations are not people. Individuals who own corporations have full right to open their personal check book and use their free speech. Corporations are groups of people and the group members have individual rights. The corporation is welcome to ask it’s share holders to call their congressman but no right to assume the individual rights held by the stockholders. The COURT WAS and IS CORRUPT. Corporations do not have natural rights they are a creation of Government and as a entity created by government should be held to the same liability our government is held to, upholding and respecting the Bill of Rights. Those rights are natural to all MAN and cannot be granted by Government only taken by government or its creations.

    Cindy corporations are allowed to be chartered only because they will benefit the US population as a whole not just investors, with fair paying jobs and good safe products. In exchange we the people give the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad. We as a people in charge of OUR government PROTECTED our industries and our jobs.

    Today the corporation controls our government media and obviously our education system.

    Your face book account better fit your company standards and you better not be seen at the protest Cindy or you will be wishing you had food stamps or unemployment because the frontier is gone it’s all owned you cant survive without a job to pay for the technology to live and the corporation will not hire people who are not good obedient workers. Just ones smart enough to do the tasks asked but not to smart to question the system Cindy.

    This needs to be passed by OUR Congress. I quote from 1948

    “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; (Walmart is a MONOPOLY and unfair to a shoe store owner or a dress shop or any small retail family business man)to late here they are gone.. but I saved a buck:)

    The right of every family to a decent home; (Cant sleep on the Public Beach.)

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; (Wow medicine has advanced from bleeding you. Today they can save your life soon extend it and genetically alter embryos to prevent future disease. Under today’s medical system soon Americans will have two species of us. Those that could afford the medical altering and thus become worth education be insurable and employable and those who can’t.

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell “security”. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

    Source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

  10. Here is the text of SA 2310. Read what it actually says, not what they tell you it says.

    Snip: “(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and

    (4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.”

    http://farmwars.info/?p=8706

  11. dale says:

    cyndi, with food and drugs, it’s hard to withhold consumption “until there is trust.” Your ideological view flies in the face of common sense. If you eat poisoned fruit, it is too late to do anything about it.

    You are out in right field spinning fantasies of free markets and consumer/manufacturer trust which in fact do not exist. Label cigarettes has saved millions of lives as children grow up knowing that smoking will kill them.

    Labeling dangers of smoking, when combined with other policies (negative advertising, etc) is shown to reduce smoking, especially among youth. Youth smoking is down nearly 50%, based largely on awareness of dangers.

    You can scream freedom all day long but if you freedom from truth in advertising leads to your early death, your freedom will be short-lived.

    Cyndi, do you smoke? Have you lost family to smoking illnesses? Do you think people have a right to disclosure of dangers in products? Would appreciate answers rather than abstract lectures based on idealistic fantasies of how the world works.

  12. Cyndi: When the states stop taking money from the feds and stop signing contracts with the feds, then they can do what they want. However, as long as they contract with the feds they must live up to the constraints of that contract. This is also about contracting. The argument that “required labeling is unconstitutional” is absurd. Like I said earlier, do you really want unlabeled products? Do you really want turds in pretty packaging labeled as nutritious and organic to be okay, and if someone gets sick then they can hunt down the manufacturer who probably took a hike to Paraguay with his profits and folded up shop? You are right in that nothing forces me to eat GMOs unless they have been hidden, and have taken over the market. Wait, they have!!! As you pointed out, honest labeling will not stop the seed invasion, but would be a step in the right direction.

  13. wanda says:

    All this dialogue does is take away from the fact that GMOs, labeled or not, are dangerous and should not be a part of our food at all. If there is a purpose to ‘government’ at all, it is to watchdog this type of thing, not give it legitimacy via the construction of laws relative to labeling. That’s insanity… oh, and look how cleverly the ploy works.

  14. Cyndi feigenbaum says:

    In a competitive market with legal tort law legally enforced, no forced speech is not required. Withhold your consumption until you have trust. Sorry this type of regulation leads to monopoly capitalism as we have it today. Labelling has never kept anyone fromm smoking. Positive statements on a label are the things that can make people and companies even more accountable. That is legally accountable. What we need is community. In community we learn who and what to trust. A producer trying to sell its product will always let us know why we should buy their product (positive statements). Of course if they are lying then they are put out of business exposed as frauds that they are!
    More appropo here is the issue with genetic engineering is not food safety. Really!!!!! The issue is trespassing! See Joe Salatin a Small Beyond Organic farmer. Start with Podcast #272 interview on the Lew Rockwell Show. Monsanto’s life forms invade our space and make us liable for them. If you pollute my lungs with your gases you are liable. If your seeds invade my space and my seeds are contaminated with yours still it is your (i.e Monsanto’s) problem. Finders keepers losers weepers. If you drop your money on the street and it flies onto my property it is now my property unless of course if it is a hurtful mess. The whole principle makes sense in a nice package.
    See also the multiple ways Mansanto is Trying to Make Seeds out of rech. Barbara I agree with that blog. But know this it is a property rights issue. Logic and Liberty are on your side. Fight the correct battle (in Surrviving the Middle Class Crash Feb 5,2009 #174). So let us say for a moment positive labelling passed. It still would not correct the issue of Monsantoes Seed invasion. Just because we have lost in the courts against Monsanto does not mean that their right to tresspass with their seed is just and if their seed mixes with Non GMO seed that is not the Non GMO producers problem.

  15. dale says:

    When you testify, you are required to take an oath to tell the truth. Being forced to tell the truth is slavery.

    Truth is slavery.

    Elected politicians are required (as are teaches and other public sectors workers, as well as soldiers.. This is slavery as well.

    One case where required speech IS slavery is in the requirement to pledge allegiance. And of course torture is used to force speech…but that is legal according to the Republicans.

  16. dale says:

    Required speech is slavery. Contracts, by law, require signatures…and that is speech, therefore being forced to sign a contract is slavery.

    Students are required in public schools and universities to write papers, discuss issues, etc. This is required to pass. But it is required speech and therefore slavery.

    In a court of law, you may be required to testify….slavery.

    Only the truth will make us free….and requiring the truth in lending, selling, and other legal transactions is slavery.

    Freedom is Slavery. (thanks to Orwell)

  17. dale says:

    Cyndi, when government requires drug manufacturers to include side effects, etc in advertising, does that enslave you or by informing you, enable freedom in the form of informed consent.

    Likewise with labeling products like cigarettes and insecticides to publish health effects, etc.

    Don’t you like to know what you are putting into your body?
    My local water company is required a few times a year to let the consumers know what is in the water, if it exceeds standards for safety, etc. I do not feel enslaved by this “mandatory speech.”
    I feel liberated to make an informed decision, which is the bedrock of liberty. Without knowledge, freedom is an illusion.

    You are promoting an illusion.

  18. I disagree, Anonymous, and here is why: The states already have the right to do what they want as long as they are independent from federal mandates. In order to become independent, they have to give up federal ties and the money that comes with them. The amendment addressed labeling at the federal level – permitting states under the federal thumb to label GMO laden food. If states decide to get rid of the feds, then this no longer applies and they can do what they want anyway. All this amendment did was to offer the states the support of the federal government when it comes to labeling GMOs. Without it, we are left with something akin to the Marijuana laws. At the state level, medical marijuana is legal, at the federal level it is not. This amendment would have harmonized both state and federal labeling directives so that states that want to label GMOs will not be subject to undo persecution and hardship.

  19. dale says:

    Re”forced speech is slavery.” So the mandated disclosures on real estate and other contracts is slavery; when businesses are required to label products, enabling consumer CHOICE, that is slavery?

    Are enforced traffic laws slavery? Are disclosure laws slavery.

    Slavery is the condition of not having the information enabling you to make a rational decision. Do I have to tell you the car you are buying is used? That would be slavery?

    Some people have things upside down. When being required to tell the truth is slavery, madness reigns.

  20. Cyndi: By that reasoning, then nothing should be mandatorily labeled. If we don’t want poisons in our food, then we should look for the labels that say non-poison. In fact, why label at all? You buy it and there is no label, then it’s on you if you get sick. If you have allergies to any ingredients, too bad. You don’t have the right to know what is in your food. Do you really want to go down that road? Oh, I forgot. If we label “labeling of ingredients” as forced speech and slavery and somehow unconstitutional, then it’s okay…

    I am 100% for locally grown food and food independence, and NOT buying ANY corporate food unless it is necessary. But can you imagine going into a grocery store that contains aisles and aisles of food that simply does not have a label? How could you possibly know if it is relatively safe to eat? As it is, there are so many things hidden beneath the veneer of labeling that it is enough to make you ban processed food altogether, but eliminating the labeling and not addressing the problem of honest labeling is simply counterproductive at the very least.

  21. MrJones says:

    @Dale. I’m with ya but I would argue that eating organic and local does not cost 30% more. I do and I find I can get by on $40 to $50 bucks a week. That is less then I was eating processed crap. I find I can eat less and that is a good thing. The other driving factor for me is seeing to it that Monsanto does NOT get 1 penny from me.

  22. Socalmat says:

    UNBELIEVABLE!
    Rand is not like his father. I am beginning not to trust what he says. He is beginning to look like a typical politician!

  23. Cyndi feigenbaum says:

    Nay is the correct vote. Those who sell Non GMO should let the consumer know by putting it on the label. They already do!!! So if they do not put it on the labell we can assume that it is GMO. In a nutshell put your best foot forward and let everone know. I am sure if you believe the consumer does not want GMO you
    would let them know. Labeling is part of advertizing!!
    Forced speech is slavery!!! And of course it is not libertarian.

  24. Nancy says:

    Say it ain’t so Rand!!! There has GOT TO BE MORE to this story! I haven’t gotten over the fact that he is now supporting Romney, and now this! Makes me sorry I voted for him.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Know don’t get me wrong. I think Rand Paul was either threatened an assassination or outright betrayed his father in supporting Mitt Romney. However I think there could be a third possibility.

    I think just maybe Rand Paul could be going for VP in order to fix the system from within. But I’m afraid that’s doomed for failure.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I think this bill is completely flawed…

    #1 Currently there is no law requiring states to seek Federal approval for every law they pass. Nor is there any law prohibiting states from requiring that corporations have GMO labeling on their products.

    In other words, any state right now can enact a law differentiating between GMO and non-GMO based foods!

    So by inserting this word “permit” into the bill, this is just another way for the Feds to subtly take away state rights mandated in the US constitution! And then after that, to outright ban anybody from labeling their GMO products(or other toxic ingredients).

    [Heck the FTC would even allow them to deceptively label half GMO’s as GMO free food! Thereby insuring profits to Monsanto]!

    #2 If the Senate really cared about this issue they would have straight to the FDA where the root of the problem is!

  27. Mike says:

    Wolf in sheep’s clothing, backstabber, betrayer, turn coat, TRAITOR!

  28. Love my Ron, The article you linked to is inaccurate. It was not a bill mandating labeling. It was an amendment permitting states to require labeling. However, I do want required labeling for GMOs, that is a start. I would rather they be considered a poisonous substance, but won’t hold my breath for that.

  29. Blake says:

    Kicking Rand Paul while he’s down? He’s not down because he got knocked down, he is down because he dropped to his knees to submit to evil. Kick away, please.

  30. dale says:

    Here is how I deal with it (the poisoning of our food supply (GMOs breed insecticides into the plant itself…..I don’t want to eat insecticides.

    So I eat no animal products, only seeds,nuts,grains, fruits and veggies and always organic. Most of the food is grown locally.
    I also shop at farmer’s markets where fresh local organic food is available.

    It costs me maybe 30% more…but at 71, I haven’t been sick for a day in many years. I work full time, I am strong and energetic.
    So I pay a little more for the organics but my health costs (I have Medicare(which only covers 80%) but no vision or dental) are minimal. Last year, my total costs were about $400. This lack of sickness and need for medical treatment and drugs more than pays for my organic food. And the fact that my meals are so enjoyable, my health so robust—–that is worth something too.

    I also garden.

  31. Bob says:

    Don’t forget to add sugar to the list of GMO products. Most of today’s sugar is made from the sugar beet, and most of the sugar beet crop is GMO.

  32. dale says:

    Part 2:

    From truefoodnow.org: “Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.

    A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.”

    So go organic..in the long run, it’s much cheaper if you value your health and the environment. Sometimes unintended consequences are beneficial. It’s up to you…organic is always labeled. And it tastes much better than engineered food grown in
    petroleum fertilizers and insecticides.

    I would like to see this Senate prohibition challenged on Constitutinal grounds: can the Feds tell states what they can and cannot do in terms of requiring consumer information? Under what Constitutional right can the Senate vote to prohibit states from requiring truth in labeling? This is not only an attack on the Constitutional protection of state’s rights, it is an attack on the truth. Can the state require that the truth (correct information) to be told? Of course. It has been required for ever in contracts, mortgages, construction estimates, and many other transactions (choosing, buying and consuming food is part of a transaction from farm to table)…it is in the interests of the public and the free market (which assumes reliable information)to require that the truth be told or disclosed.

    So this Senate vote is also a vote against requiring, as in a court of law, that the truth be told. GMO or not? No vendor has the right to withhold that information from me. I have the right to know. And if it is withheld, I will boycott that store and go organic. Yum.

  33. dale says:

    The prohibition by the federal government of the right of states to
    require truth in labeling in order to protect consumers and allow them their right to informed consent will likely have an unintended consequence.

    My right to know what I am eating is fundamental. I know that GMOs are dangerous in many ways. (see: http://www.invigorate360.com/r.....fied-food/ for a summary of problems.

    I do not want to eat GMO foods. Now how can I know (this is a basic libertarian principle, the sovereign consumer) if it is illegal for states to require transparency in labeling, which effectively takes away my right to know what I am consuming.

    This strips me of a basic right (nothing is more real and personal and subject to informed consent than what we put into our bodies)to know. Therefore, since I cannot know, by Federal law, I can either buy something that is probably GMO (most soy and corn, for instance) or…………………..buy organic.

    When you take away the public’s right to know, you will force many people who do not want GMOs (55% of Americans in 2003 Pew study) to buy organic to avoid them. With labeling, stores that carried GMOs might lose business or respond to consumer demand and carry non-GMO corn or soy and thus give consumers a choice.

    It is this choice which has been taken away. Now stores can voluntarily label their products, I believe (the state cannot require it)…so those who label will find more consumers, by giving them a choice.

    But where there is no labeling, consumers who object to GMOs will be strongly incentivized to buy organic.

    One major problem with GMO is that they will contaminate neignboring non-GMO crops, including organic.

    That notwithstanding (that is such fun to say, to have arrived at), the many consumers will, I predict, just opt out of a system which does not give them informed consent and buy organic.

    This may be a boon for organic foods and natural farming methods.

    What’s next: the ban on labeling GMO fish, the Frankenfish which are about to sneak into your meat counter.

    If you want to reclaim your right to know what you are eating, you will be strongly advised to switch to organic, which costs a bit more but then what is the cost of eating polluted food in terms of your health and damage to the environment?

    We have the right to know what we are eating. The recent Senate vote helped crush that right by prohibiting states from requiring truth in labeling. Those who do not object to this vote are willingly accepting the stripping of their most basic right–the right to choose what you eat (and you cannot choose without information/labeling).

    If you an take away people’s right to know, all the other rights, speech, dissent, etc are meaningless. If you don’t know, you can’t choose. Thus our freedom has been diminished for the sake of profits for Monsanto which has bought out most Senators and scores of officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations.

    This ugly merging of corporate/government interests is fascist.
    This vote represents the deep corruption by which wealthy corporations, to advance their profit profile, can buy politicians either by helping elect them or by hiring them at 10 times their government salary after they leave public “service.”

    And this corruption, which exists to serve the special interests of the GMO industry, works by taking away our right to know, our right to a meaningful choice. Choice is freedom; when they take away your choice, they crush your freedom.

    Corruption/ destruction of freedom. No wonder Congress is disapproved by 9 of 10 people. I worry about those (I think on the right) who are happy to have their liberty destroyed.

    Labels are information; without information, we are unable to make rational choices…..we are slaves (people deprived of their right to choose). Even in authoritarian China, where a huge percent of their food is GMO, labeling is required. We have fewer rights than the Chinese, in this regard.

  34. dale says:

    Jennie, your comment is a double logical fallacy. Rather than comment on the merits of the bill (to allow states to legislate labeling requirements to enable consumers to know what they are buying and consuming), you have attacked one of the 26 who voted to support this state’s right. This is the fallacy of ad hominem.

    The second fallacy is to assume what must be demonstrated…ie that the bill is evil. In what way is allowing states to require labeling of GMO products. The basic concept is that without labeling, consumers cannot exercise their right of informed consent. So voting against this bill takes away that right.

    According to the Pew Research Center (from 2003), most people are opposed to GMO foods: 55% in the US, 63% in Canada, 81% in Germany, and 89% in France. So voting against this bill also ignores the will of the majority…not to ban GMO but to allow states to give consumers informed consent through labeling.

    Many nations, based on health studies and effect on non-
    GMO crops (drift pollutes neighboring crops; GMO plants have led to superbugs immune to insecticides, etc)such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Ireland, Austria, Hungry, Greece, and 6 other nations. Some counties in the US have banned GMO cultivation.

    All of these bans were based on studies documenting negative consequences of GMO food production. Without understanding these negative effects, any discussion of GMO’s is worthless.

    I looked up John Kerry’s voting record. I’m sure that half the bills he voted for would meet with your approval. Have you studied his voting record. You documented no evidence that whatever he might vote for would have to be evil.

    Consequently, since you commit multiple fallacies and provide no evidence for your fallacious comment, I think we can agree to dismiss it as the kneejerk reaction of a person who has not read or studied the bill in question, knows nothing about the dangers of GMOs, and is unaware that the beneficiary of the defeat of this bill to allow states to legislate labeling laws to inform consumers is Monsanto, which has close ties to many influential politicians. SC Justice Thomas was the lawyer for Monsanto. Do you think he would be unbiased if a case came before the court.
    Several of Bush’s cabinet were on the Board of Directors of Monsanto (Secy’s of Agriculture and Defense); Bush Secretary of Health got 50K from Monsanto to help win the governorship.the head of the House AG committee under Bush, as well as the Attorney General, received the most “donations” from Monsanto.

    In the Obama administration, ties with Monsanto have intensified.
    Dissidentvoice.org reports that ” Key figures in the regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have, according to Rense.com, “held important positions at Monsanto” before working in those regulatory bodies or have held them “after their biotech related regulatory work for the government agency.” As a result, the government has become one with Monsanto in terms of favorable policy….. President Barack Obama has appointed several people who were related to such a big agricultural company, Monsanto….
    Taylor was a former attorney and vice president of public policy at Monsanto before he became the FDA Commissioner.”

    In other words, the regulators are in collusion with Monsanto. This effectively makes them Monsanto shills and negates their value as regulators.

    Many other current executive officials have worked for Monsanto (and after their public service, will most likely be rewarded to serving Monsanto by being offered very lucrative jobs. This is the famous revolving door which makes government regulation beholden to the industry it is supposed to regulate.

    This whole story shows how powerful corporations buy and control government oversight and buy and control Congress. Those who serve Monsanto will be able to make huge salaries by becoming lobbyists for Monsanto when their public service (actually service to a private corporation) is finished. More revolving door.

    Without knowing these facts about Monsanto’s occupation of Washington, you cannot possibly make a rational comment about the Senate vote which stripped the states of the right to legislate labeling for consumer protection and choice. Your choice to know what you are consuming has been taken away from you.

    So, your fallacious and unsupported comment can be dismissed as without merit. Your right to know was taken away and you are happy about it. What do we call such a person, who revels in being stripped of important rights (to know what you are eating)?

    I will leave that to other readers to determine.

  35. JennieWalsh says:

    There was obviously something very evil, either in the amendment or in the bill because John Kerry voted for it.

  36. Duke says:

    Thanks for informing us about Rand Paul.
    I hope his ignorance is just a case of…ignorance. It would then be possible to educate him. Unfortunately for a politician to admit they ever made a mistake is akin to career suicide, especially if your last name is “Paul”. the wolves would have Christmas and Carnival all at one time!
    What should we do?
    To be instrumental in gettin-rid-of Rand Paul would only mean that someone worse would take his place. There are possibly not enough of us food-concerned people to make this a big MSM issue. I guess the only think to do is contact Rand and tell him he is on the wrong side…Youmay want to ask him if he wants to eat a cucumber that may be related to his wife as well as his neighbor’s goat.

  37. dale says:

    Men who preach against corporate welfare but vote to continue huge subsidies to wealthy corporations should be exposed. Ron Paul preaches against war and American engagement, but he voted for the war in Afghanistan to avoid political suicide. That is pure hypocrisy, to vote for war and preach against it, to vote for corporate welfare while preaching against it.

    Such hypocrisy deserves to be exposed and “bashed.”

    HOw can a libertarian vote a 20 billion subsidy to the richest corporations in all history, which make 40 billion in profits and pay no taxes? Please tell me. And how can an anti-imperialist vote for an imperial war. Please explain.

    I once liked Ron Paul but when he lied about how didn’t know the Paul Report, from which he made a lot of money, was publishing racist articles, I lost all faith in them. Then I studied his voting record and found he is a total fraud. He objects to earmarks but then proposes tens of millions of earmarks for his district and resolves this moral contradiction by not voting.

    He accepts the earmarks he lets others approve but can claim he does not vote for earmarks; he only proposes them and accepts them. In fact he has voted for many earmarks tho usually he uses the “I didn’t vote” cop out.

    The Pauls are adored by their fans who refuse to see through the
    phoniness to see the calculated hypocrisies which characterizes both of them. Those who do not practice what they preach should be bashed.

  38. dale says:

    Rand Paul as patriot. He criticized Obama for corporate welfare but voted to continue the 20 billion a year subsidy to the big oil corps, which have recorded record profits of over a trillion the last decade with Exxon Chevron, and others paying no taxes, indeed getting tax refunds. And he voted against allowing states to make their own labeling laws.

    This is no patriot. This is a fake, based on the evidence. He gets most of his money from outside the state from large corporations and the likes of the Koch brothers. Then he votes for corporate welfare and against state’s rights. That is no libertarian.

    And what is a patriot. In 1775, Samuel Johnson observed that “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundral.” He was thinking of fake patriots who preach one thing and practice another like Rand Paul.

    And when did Rand Paul serve in the military or protest against election fraud or voter suppression or ever join the struggle for civil rights. On the contrary, he wants to gut the Civil
    Rights Act and make it legal for hotels, amusement parks, restaurants, and other public accomodations which are privately owned to put up No Blacks or NO Jews or No Women signs. He values property rights, which are a creation of the state, over human rights, which are granted by our Creator, or prior to government. No patriot would demote human rights to protect the
    established and engineered inequality which characterizes contemporary America.

    Rand Paul votes for the transnational corporations, gives them subsidies and tax loopholes. He is no patriot, except in Johnson’s sarcastic sense. He has never done one thing for his country, never made one sacrifice. He is as phony as a Fox” news” report.

  39. slbslm says:

    Neocons Love Patriots Who Bash Rand Paul and Ron Paul. DIVIDE and CONQUER. They Love IT!!!

  40. slbslm says:

    Yea Barbara. The Elite Scum Breathe The Same Air As We Do But Do They Eat The Same Food We Eat?

    Last time I checked, a good amendment attached to a bad bill will not make it a good bill.

    I see alot of Rand Paul bashing here. Kick a Patriot while he is down.

  41. dale says:

    Almost all Republicans voted to prohibit states from requiring GMO labeling (whatever happened to states’ rights?) while a minority of
    corrupt Democrats voted with the Repubs.

    Bernie Sanders and about 25 Dems voted to allows tates to make their own labeling laws, including both California Democratic Senators.

    Shame on Dems like Al Franken who voted against the bill and the fake libertarian Rand Paul, who also voted against it along with over 90% of the Republicans.

    Shame on all those of both parties who have expanded Federal power to prohibit states from acting.
    Shame on the Republican Party most of all for preaching states rights but voting almost unanimously against it.

    What further proof do we need that the corporations (such as Montsanto) own government? When the interests of the corporations and the state merge, we have what Mussolini in the
    Doctrine of Fascism (1932) called fascism.

    Praise to the 26 (almost all
    Democrats) who voted for this bill, bucking the fascist corporate herd mentality of their sold-out peers. Only one Republican voted against it, Murkowski of Alaska who has stood up against the Republican corporatists before.

    25 Dems for; 1 Republican for.
    26 Dems against; 47 Republicans against.

    Who stands for state’s rights and truth in labeling? Half the Democrats and 97% of the Republicans.

    The American people are the losers. Time to change the system, ban the corporate money which vote this tyrannical vote.

  42. slbslm: READ the words. It was the AMENDMENT, not the bill. Rockefeller et al breathe the same air as we do too. Yes, the bill is corrupt. This amendment was probably the one thing that was good about it, and it was struck down. But by all means, attack the messenger when the TRUTH is inconvenient.

  43. slbslm says:

    ROCKEFELLER, KERRY and LIBERMAN Voted for this bill. That pretty much guarantees this bill Was CORRUPT.

    Again,, Look Who Voted For This Bill!!

    They are New World Order Criminals.

    HEY Barbra H. Peterson! Do you Know Who These Guys are? They Man The Ship To Poison Us! (They Are The Establishment!!)

    Barbera. Was Your Article intended to Muddy The Water?

  44. dale says:

    . “They believe everyone has all the resource they need to survive without any kind socialized help.”

    Except the corporations which need huge subsidies despite historical profits. This is corporate communism.

    Thanks for your comment exposing Rand Paul as a little stoner/fascist fake. When he is done with politics, he will make millions as a reward from the corporations……

  45. Nonames Please. I want to Work says:

    I know Ron Paul and there is a dark side to the “NEO-Liberty” movement. I call them NEO- because they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Paul and Rand that is. They will never address this “issue” because they know 90% or their followers believe they are for classical founding father type liberty. They are NOT. The NEO-Liberty movement points to the founding independent Americans from our history as how we as a people should be today. They believe everyone has all the resource they need to survive without any kind socialized help. Better think here…

    They are Fascist’s just like the Republicans and Democrats are. Please wake up… remember what your grand parents once knew…

    Americans have just lost 40% of their wealth! The playing field is being leveled! Americans are being prepped. The new generation brain washed to compete against a “global” labor force. “The American worker is the best worker in the world and can compete against anyone!”. You’ve heard it..

    The world Ron and Rand want is not the one you as a piece of “Labor” think your getting. Under a NEO-Liberty government, government would have NO POWER at all to reign in corporate power.

    We need to realize its not the idea of “government of by and for the people” that is evil here. It is the entities (corporations) that have claimed the rights of the citizen and a corrupted court that agreed with them. Today our government is being looked at as a business, its not. CEO and board room experience is not relevant to “American form of Government” The revolving door from Boardroom to Congress to the White House from General to General Dynamics BS has to stop.

    Corporations have set our government at defiance to its people. The NEO-Liberty people have been told our Government is the impediment to their liberty’s and needs striped of its power. Indeed the power of our government is now being used to take away our rights but it being controlled by Corporations not us.

    It is only “our government” who actually promised through the Bill of Rights never to take our Natural Rights. Corporations have no such liability to us as Americans.

    Your face book account better fit your company standards and you better not be seen at the protest or you will be wishing you had food stamps or unemployment because the frontier is gone my friends.

    A 160 acre farm in poor soil area in Iowa I just read is up for sale for $1.2 million dollars! That’s today’s price tag for independence $1.2 million! And that’s just the land!This is how far economically removed YOU are from your rights.

    The NEO-Liberty movement points to the founding independent Americans from our history as how we as a people should be today. We cant it’s all owned nothing for the taking as our founders had it..

    We don’t need rid of our government we need to seize the power of our government back from the corporations, we need to remove “Corporate person-hood” from our LAWS. We also need to seize the Federal Reserve Corporation for its issuing power and issue our money debt free. Fractional Reserve Lending and Debt Based Economics are tools of the Corporation to enslave us. If you don’t know the terms look-em up!!!!

    Think Logically My Friends!

  46. dale says:

    Readthefirst3words should read the first 3 words. This bill was to permit states to require GMO labeling. To vote for it is to affirm the states right to legislate; to vote No is to prohibit the states from legislation.

    Therefore, the No vote, which won, denies states rights.

    Readthefirstthreewords has confused permit with deny, and so he has strangely viewed a bill which prohibits states from labeling as a vote for states rights. Read the first 3 words.

    So Rand Paul has voted against state’s rights. What a phony, as phony as his father who argues against war, empire, and invading other nations but voted Yes to invade Afghanistan (despite the fact that the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden if shown evidence he was responsible for 9/11; in fact, he is not and so there was no evidence. A few months later, he was out of Afghanistan but 11 years later, we are still there.

    If you don’t practice what you preach, you are a fake. Ron and Rand Paul are both fakes. Those who voted No (like Ron Paul and fake Al Franken) voted to prohibit states rights and to deny the public knowledge of what they are eating. This is not libertarianism; it is just naked corporatism.

    Most of Rand Paul’s money came from out of state. His top 5 contributors are all wealthy corporations, incl

    Alliance Resource Partners
    Koch Industries
    Mason Capital Management
    Murray Energy
    Corriente Advisors

    Here is the headline: Sen. Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare (Paul.Senate.gov).

    He also criticizes Obama for corporate welfare. But when it’s time to translate rhetoric into action, Paul folds like the corporate shill he is. When it came time to end corporate welfare, Paul voted to keep the 20 billion a year oil depletion allowance for the big oil companies, which have made over a trillion in profits over the past decade, and frequently pay no taxes.

    1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

    2 Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

    3 Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

    4. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

    So Rand Paul, libertarian and critic of corporate welfare, voted to continue the 20 billion a year subsidy to these giants.

    Among the beneficiaries, all the above plus British owned BP(remember the Gulf), and Shell. The justification is that if we don’t give them more money (after they make 10 billion and no taxes in 3 months), they will raise the price of gas.

    That alone admits that prices are fixed, not set by supply/demand.

    But the idea that we have to give the wealthiest corporations in human history 20 billion a year or “prices will rise” is itself
    an admission of how the big corporations control the market.

    Any honest libertarian would run screaming from this scenario and any politicians, such as Rand Paul, who get their money from the corporations and vote to give away money to the corporations.

    And any fiscal conservative who thinks that rich industries should be given billions by the taxpayers is not a fiscal conservative.

    Isn’t it clear by now: big business creates and support big government for 2 basic reasons:

    1) to socialize losses (bailouts, subsidies, etc)
    and
    2) to pay not only for huge bailouts to rescue private corporations banks, etc. but to pay for the costs of corporations sending jobs oversees, which creates unemployment and with that costly benefit payments and decreases govt revenue just as costs rise.

    Big government serves Big Business by socializing losses and socializing the costs of offshoring jobs. If Big Government did not exist, Big Business would have to invent it. The 800 billion bank bailout in 2008? Only a large government could afford that. And providing benefits to the 8 million unemployed as a result of the 2008-09 recession has cost hundreds of billions. In fact, almost a third of the Obama stimulus was just to pay for the added unemployment costs (over a third was tax refunds: is that wasteful spending?); less a third was used to directly create or save jobs.

    Only a big government could support 8 million laid off workers in a 2 year period. Corps slash jobs (or offshore) to maximize profits; usually, when jobs are cut, the stock rallies, value is created for investors. And the government, it has to be big to feed 45 million and provide benefits to 12 million unemployed,
    pays for the costs of what big business does to maximize profits.

    They gain; we pay. Big Business creates Big Government to insure that profits are private and often not taxed and to shift the cost of laying off workers to the public/government.

    The myth of a struggle between Big Business (capitalism) and Big Government (socialism) is used to mask the way that Big Business buys and uses government to socialize its losses. And it is also used to divide and conquer (ideological wars) the vast majority whose true interests are common but who must be made to fight each other instead of together challenging those who are picking their pockets thru the marriage of the state and the corporations or “fascism” as Mussolini defined this alliance.

    And Rand Paul is a typical “take their money; serve their interests” politician, pretending to be a libertarian. He is just a corporate Republican forced to rebrand his career since Republicans have lost most approval in the US under Bush, his wars and economic collapse. It’s like Tea Party, which ironically under Ron Paul, started in 2007 as an anti-bank, anti-war movement. Today totally sold out, is is pro-bank and pro-war, just Republicans with a new name.

    To quote an earlier anti-war protester (but who went to jail for his beliefs), “I say beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” (HD Thoreau)

    Replace new clothes with new names (Standard Oil became Exxon;
    or BP, which was British Petroleum..names changed to rebrand a tarnished image) and you get the meaning. The Tea Party is just the corporate Republican party with new clothes. They favor corporate subsidies, low or no taxes on the rich, and cutting back funding for middle class workers and the unemployed.

    And Rand Paul, and the Tea Party (both supported by Koch bros),
    are sporting new clothing but voting along with the other Republicans to support corporate welfare and cut spending for the hungry and sick.

  47. Bob says:

    Rand Paul is politically dead in my book.

  48. readthefirstthreewords says:

    this isn’t about GMOs…

    its about state rights… read the first three words of the bill. “to permit states”. Obviously its a good idea for there to be labeling, but states need their rights. Its a step to strip federal power.

  49. Christy says:

    Currently I look for labels that say “non gmo”. If it does not have that on the label and it contains corn, wheat or canola I will pass. Given the choice between any product labeled non gmo or not labeled I choose non gmo. I look for organic as well. Locally produced is even better. There are companies who know 80% of the people want the label and will make their food without gmo indredients and voluntarily label it! I choose to support the companies and growers doing what I consider to be the right thing. Just because the government does not support labeling does not mean you have to eat possibly gmo food.

    Also I choose to go organic with my lawn and garden products.

    Thanks for posting the votes, we have an opportunity to make more informed choices in future elections.