The TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200

The current health care legislation under proposal is not an easy read for the average person. It is full of parenthetical expressions and obscure (maybe even equivocal and cryptic) sentences that may refer to other legislation not openly addressed within HR 3200 as the bill is currently identified. Here's an example plucked from page 428 of the bill (includes line numbers):

12 ‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination

13 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion

14 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad

15vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying

16 the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

So by the time one finds subection (WW) he may again be referred to some other section or previous inacted legislation (i.e. under the provisions of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.] only if the State...)

Then there's the overall cost of implementing HR 3200 (and the Senate version as well) which goes without saying, "It's going to cost a bunch!" And this is where I differ from the Administration...they say, "...it will save money and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse." Well you can call me Joe Wilson, but "They lie!" This monstrosity will cost literally trillions of dollars which you and I don't have nor never will have...nor the next several generations of our children. ~ Norman E. Hooben

ps  To all who care:  Don't let anyone kid you about why the administration is forcing this bill against the will of the American people...it's all about control, control over you!  Just remember the words of Gordon Brown after the G20 summit in London, "The New World Order is emerging."  ...and its never going to be like the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus.  And if ever another deTocqueville comes around to write about America he'll find a lot of peasants (remember Alexis deTocqueville wrote in his "Democracy In America" that America has no peasants...but I guess they don't teach that in schools anymore).  Norm

Latest on Obama Care: First they're going to cram it down our throats...then they're going to reconcile. What kind of $#!+ is this?

Collage by N. Hooben

Courtesy of Pundit & Pundette

Cram-down begins with posting of shell-bill

The game is afoot. Congress has dusted off and posted a 2300-page bill which will serve as the shell for the actual legislation they plan to cram down an unwilling America's throat.

Is this how Congress, with their huge Democrat majority and alleged mandate for change, would pass a popular, bill? Even supporters of the Obama agenda must see that the maneuvers planned for this week, starting today, are, er, extraordinary.
Philip Klein describes the scheme:

Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation -- but don't let that fool you, it's not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you've been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the "shell" bill -- the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care. Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be stripped, and then they'll insert in all of the actual changes that they've negotiated.
Why all of the theatrics?
Well, under the reconciliation rules in last year's budget, any reconciliation bill would have to have been submitted to the Budget Committee by October 15, 2009. It just so happens that earlier versions of health care legislation cleared the Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees last year. So Democrats just dusted that legislation off, and are using that as the vehicle to begin the reconciliation process. That's why, for instance, if you look through the 2,309 page bill that was released Sunday night, you'll find a public option, which leadership has indicated would not actually be in the final bill. (Interestingly, the student loan bill is also tacked on at the end.)
Just a "simple up or down vote," remember?

Michelle Malkin:

If the TARP bank bailout was a “crap sandwich,” the Democrats’ Student Loan Nationalization plan wrapped inside the latest version of the health care takeover is a Big Government Burrito.
The House Democrats’ 2,309-page reconciliation bill headed for House Budget Committee markup tomorrow has just been posted this evening and you can download the whole PDF file right here.
Or you can read it on Scribd thanks to the Senate Republicans.
The markup hearing will start at 3pm Eastern and will be broadcast on CSPAN – watch online right here.

This is nothing but a monstrous power grab. RS McCain calls it a 2300-page scam that will live in infamy:

This whole Pelosi procedure is nothing but a thumb in the eye of the Constitution. The House could merely have an up-or-down vote on the Senate version of the bill, but Pelosi doesn’t have enough votes to do that – she’d lose the votes of several Democrats who have principled objections to various measures in the Senate version — and so instead they’re going through this bizarre kabuki dance.

No, no. It's just that the "rulebooks are confusing"! Ruby Slippers points out this bit of preposterous spin from Ezra Klein:

It's a bit like how painters will reuse a canvas they've already painted on, though they're doing it to save money and the House and Senate do it because their rulebooks are confusing.

That's just pathetic.

We know why the Democrats are contorting their process to the point of possible unconstitutionality, and risking their own re-election and majority: a medically entitled, dependent populace is the surest way to strengthen government power and weaken the people's desire to resist it. Axelrod said it himself.

Thank you Bill Clinton...one more assassination by UN troops in Haiti

There are two stories here about the same subject published on the same date. Which story do you suppose most Americans heard? Which story has the most credence? Which story do you suppose the United Nations wishes never was printed? You know I don't have to suggest any answers to these questions but if you haven't figured them out for yourself by now...wake the h--- up! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Dont't miss the video at the bottom of this page...this is your tax dollars at work!

Story # 1

Bill Clinton tours ravaged Haiti areas

Published: July 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM

GONAIVES, Haiti, July 7 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, serving as the United Nations' special envoy, Tuesday toured parts of Haiti hammered by hurricanes and floods last year. Clinton was in Gonaives with Haitian President Rene Preval as part of his three-day visit to help improve hurricane preparedness and job creation in the impoverished Caribbean nation, the United Nations said in a release.
They discussed labor-intensive rehabilitation projects and providing basic services to communities in the Artibonite Valley.
The two men also visited a flood-prevention project on the La Quinte River, which drenched the city last year, and an emergency hospital that has temporarily replaced one destroyed by hurricanes.
Clinton, who met Monday night with Preval and Prime Minister Pierre Louis, also was to tour a garbage recycling project in the poor suburb of Carrefour Feuilles in the capital, Port-au-Prince.
He also was to to meet with members of Parliament, and Wednesday talk with members of the private sector, international and national non-governmental organizations and civil society groups.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Clinton would "also focus on how to ensure that the United Nations, civil society and the donor community align their activities with the governments's recovery plan, as well as with each other."
Haiti was hit by four back-to-back tropical storms last year that killed nearly 800 people and affected an estimated 1 million people, the U.N. release said.linton tours ravaged Haiti areas

Story #2

Clinton's 'silence' challenged in Haiti

by Kevin Pina July 7, 2009

Bill Clinton arrived in Port au Prince on Monday to assume his post as the new special UN Envoy to Haiti amid much fanfare in the press. Jonathan Katz of the Associated Press (AP) wrote, "Bill Clinton aims to refocus international attention on this Caribbean country's deep economic problems and environmental decay during his first visit as the United Nations' special envoy to Haiti."

Clinton stated at UN headquarters in New York prior to his departure, "Haiti, notwithstanding the total devastation wreaked by the four storms last year, has the best chance to escape the darker aspects of its history in the 35 years that I have been going there." Clinton continued, "[Haiti is safer today] because of the work of the United Nations peacekeeping and police forces. No effort like that is without controversy and incident, but they have basically done a good job. I was there in the streets of Cite Soleil. I saw the children walking without fear."

The ‘controversy and incident' referred to by Mr. Clinton stems from accusations of UN involvement in human rights abuses and their oversight of the Haitian police as the force committed summary executions and widespread false arrests following Aristide's ouster in 2004. More importantly, it may betray some recognition on Clinton's part that the day he chose for his debut in Haiti was also the fourth anniversary of what is alleged to be a massacre committed by UN forces in the teaming seaside slum of Cite Soleil.

On July 6, 2005 the residents of Cite Soleil were the objects of a full military assault by UN forces. It resulted in over 22,000 rounds being fired in a raid on the pro-Aristide slum ordered by Brazilian General Heleno Ribera. By the time the gun smoke cleared it revealed a nightmare of blood and screams as people bled to death in close-knit tin roof houses, small alleys and narrow roadways in Cite Soleil.

"For many of them, I knew I couldn't save them so I filmed their last moments of life. For others I filmed their violent death after the U.N. shot up Cite Soleil on July 6, 2005," says Haitian journalist Jean Ristil. He was the only videographer to capture the full impact and terror of the UN raid that fateful day. One example is when Ristil films a headshot victim, Leon Chery, as he bleeds to death on camera. Chery holds his bloody jaw that was separated from his head by a single high-powered gunshot. As Chery dies on camera Jean Ristil comments that it was "casque bleu" or blue helmets that shot him.

The most terrifying images captured by Ristil on July 6, 2005 were those of a family killed in their home. The sole survivor, a tearful father, sits in a chair over the lifeless bodies of his wife and two infant sons lying on the floor. Fredi Romulus explains in detail how UN troops lobbed a red smoke grenade into his house and everyone panicked. He sobbed deeply as he expressed his grief over leaving the house first and turning to see UN soldiers fire into the doorway towards his wife and children. Sonia Romulus was holding her one year-old son Nelson when the UN bullet passed through his small body killing both of them instantly. A separate head shot killed four year-old Stanley Romulus, Nelson's older brother.

Ribera ordered the raid after weeks of intense pressure from Haiti's wealthy elite. In the end he agreed with the likes of Andy Apaid over what they commonly referred to as ‘Bandits in Cite Soleil' and the necessity of eliminating them by force. Apaid was the founder of the Group 184 that was backed by the Haiti Democracy Project (HDP) in Washington D.C. that provided the veneer of mass appeal to the second coup against Aristide in Feb. 2004. Apaid is also cited in several human right reports for having funded gangs in Cite Soleil to attack Aristide supporters. And finally, Mr. Apaid is also an owner of large industrial tracks in Haiti where he builds factories to create partnerships with U.S. and Canadian manufacturers. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited one of Apaid's factories in an effort to push the Hope II act in the U.S. Congress that would allow for tax breaks for U.S. apparel manufacturers doing business in Haiti.

In reality it was clear before July 6, 2005 that complete isolation of Cite Soleil by UN forces was not going to stop the growing demonstrations demanding the return of Aristide and an end to the repression. Thousands marching for the Lavalas movement in Cite Soleil every month became an embarrassing reminder that the UN mission in Haiti was based upon a fabrication evolved and orchestrated by the governments of Bush, Martin and Chirac. Each demonstration was a challenge to this triumvirate's pretext for Aristide's ouster in 2004 and the subsequent repression, namely that Aristide had lost the support of the Haitian people and that he had been toppled in a ‘popular rebellion.' Cite Soleil's example was amplified by similar demonstrations that continued in Bel Air, another community whose population was targeted with frequent deadly raids and massive sweeps for bandits.

The primary U.N. military target on July 6, 2005 was the leader of an armed resistance movement to police and U.N. control of Cite Soleil. Emmanuel Wilmer, a.k.a. Dred Wilme, decided to pick up a gun and resist following regular attacks on the community by paramilitary forces, trigger-happy Haitian police, and finally U.N. military raids. For Wilmer and the community it became clear that the UN was backing the violence of Aristide's opposition and the actions of the Haitian police as they indiscriminately shot at suspected Lavalas supporters in their homes and during peaceful demonstrations. The UN also coordinated huge dragnets with the Haitian police resulting in wholesale arrests of suspected ‘bandits.' This would quickly overwhelm the already nightmarish prison system in Haiti even as the Canadian government claimed responsibility for training the police and reforming the prisons. The killings and prolonged detention of Lavalas political opponents by the Latorture regime continued and even increased during 2005-2006.

The UN knew exactly where Wilmer was that day and went after him first. He and four of his comrades were felled in a hail of bullets in a UN miltary raid that clearly viewed his assassination as its primary objective. The UN would continue firing for several hours reportedly shooting at anything that moved. Seth Donnelly was in Haiti as part of a human rights delegation that was sponsored by the San Francisco Labor Council. Donnelly and a small human rights team investigated the scene the next day and video taped extensive testimony with the survivors. Donnelly recalls, "We arrived in Cite Soleil on July 7th, 2005, approximately 24 hours after a major ‘UN operation' there. It was clear that UN troops had shot many unarmed individuals the day before. Many people-- old and young-- came forward to our delegation and gave testimony that U.N. soldiers had injured and killed innocent Haitians in the name of going after Dred Wilme and "gang" members. We also discovered the fly-ridden corpses of a mother and her two young children who were reportedly killed by UN gunfire in their home."

"Haitians love Bill Clinton" read the headline in the UN Dispatch on June 16 where John Boonstra would write, "Clinton also had strong praiseworthy words for the UN peacekeepers in the country, who contributed, in his words, to an environment of ‘children walking without fear' in Cite Soleil, one of the worst slums in Haiti's capital city." When asked what he thought of Bill Clinton's arrival as UN Envoy on July 6 Seth Donnelly was incredulous, "Why did Bill Clinton-- who arrived in Haiti today on the 4th anniversary of the UN assault on the people of Cite Soleil-- make no mention of this incident? Why did he instead choose to praise UN peacekeepers in Haiti?"

Katz would write of Clinton's arrival in the Associated Press, "Still, Clinton remains widely popular - especially among the mostly poor supporters of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide who are old enough to remember Clinton's help in restoring Aristide to power in 1994 after a coup."

Rene Civil of the Lavalas Mobilization Commission does not share Katz's assessment. The commission leaders and the membership of Lavalas embody Katz's description of "mostly poor supporters of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide." It was exactly this movement that recently waged a successful boycott campaign against UN -sponsored Senate elections after Lavalas was barred from participating.

Civil describes Clinton as, "using his name and trading on his past history to cover-up the massacre of July 6, 2005 and other atrocities committed by the United Nations against Lavalas supporters." Civil also doesn't believe Clinton's new role really changes anything, "Clinton is also siding with the Haitian elite in Haiti that worked with the Bush administration to kidnap president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.We expect the same treatment we always get from the UN after the killing whether Bill Clinton is here or not. The UN denies killing a mourner in broad daylight during Father Jean-Juste's funeral on June 18 and nothing has been done about it. Just like July 6, 2005, the denials are always followed by the suffering of the survivors and the silence of the grave."

Later in the evening of July 6, as Clinton and his staff settled into their luxury hotel suites, the residents of Cite Soleil would hold events to remember the victims of the UN raid on their community four years ago. Tears and grief would give way to angry shouts of "Down with the UN" and "Clinton, where are you now?" as a video showing the aftermath of the raid and other military incursions by the UN played on a large screen. As the evening progressed the angry invectives against Clinton and the UN only grew louder and more determined. It became clear that whatever affection the poor in Cite Soleil may have once had for Clinton has since been replaced by the realization that he will do little to help them in their search for justice.

©2009 Haiti Information Project

The Haiti Information Project (HIP) is a non-profit alternative news service providing coverage and analysis of breaking developments in Haiti.

Winner of the CENSORED 2008 REAL NEWS AWARD for Outstanding Investigative Journalism

For further information about the Haiti Information Project (HIP) visit: http://www.teledyol.net/HIP/about.html
Contact: HIP@teledyol.net

This is your wonderful United Nations Peacekeeping Forces paid for with your tax dollars !

Islam Is Fundamentally Wrong...unless you are Left and sometimes Right

Right and Wrong

My hat's off to Andrew McCarthy at NRO for taking on those on the right, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Paul Mirengoff and, by extension, Glenn Beck (on Wilders), who are not as smart or informed as they think they are.
Their fundamental misunderstanding of Islam and the leftist Islamic alliance is dangerous. The leftist/islamic alliance could well lead to national suicide. Who is going to fight the bad guys if there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the bad guy's ideology by the historical "good guys"? And when Jonah Goldberg laments that he  doesn't "fully agree with those who argue that Islam is the problem ....because that strikes me as a blind alley," that's wrong. His premise is false. Wherever the facts take you, no matter how problematic, they must be dealt with, because the facts are going to take you there anyway, whether you like it or not.
Goldberg goes on, "to say that Islam is the problem is not to say that we have to be at war with Islam. Rather, we need to put the focus on Islam so it can expedite internal reform." Again, Goldberg shows his ignorance. The Koran is uncreated (unlike the bible.) According to Islam, it is the word of allah -- uncreated. How can any Muslim "reinterpret" or "reform" the word of allah? It is a crime in Islam to "reinterpret" the Koran. It is the crime of hypocrisy, and like apostasy, is punishable by death.
And while every Muslim does not engage in jihad, they are sympathetic. Not every American enlists in the army, but good Americans  support our troops.
There is much more I can add to misunderstanders of Islam, but the back and forth between Jonah Goldberg and Andrew McCarthy is very instructive. I am grateful McCarthy and taken it on. And while I think McCarthy's use of Islamism is a useless term -- it's Islam, pure Islam -- McCarthy gets it.

Until then, I think you are misstating my argument — as is the excellent Paul Mirengoff, who also has a very thoughtful post at Powerline. I have argued that the Islamist agenda and even the al Qaeda agenda are much broader than just terrorism. They are anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-individual liberty, pro-totalitarian, pro-collectivist, etc. They hold that American interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially our military interventions, are exploitations of the Muslim world aimed at robbing its natural resources and spreading Western principles that are anathema to the indigenous culture. Leftists (including leftist lawyers) can easily sign on to much of that without signing on to all of Islamist ideology. 

Along these lines, I respectfully suggest that by focusing on Islamist (and, frankly, Islam's) hostility to homosexuals, consignment of women to second-class status, and promotion of Islam in the schools, Paul misses the big picture. Islam and the Left are not perfectly aligned, but they are substantially aligned, much more so than most people realize. And as I said in my post, the issue isn't so much whether, in a vacuum, Leftist lawyers are pro-al Qaeda or pro-Islamist. It is where their sympathies lie as between two opponents: the United States as it is and Islamism. I disagree with John McCain on a number of issues that are of great importance to me — more issues than Paul cites as divergences between Islamists and Leftitsts. Yet, I supported McCain for president. Could you say I was pro-McCain? I suppose. But I wasn't dealing with McCain in a vacuum; I was dealing with a choice between McCain and Obama, and on that it was no contest.

The Marxist Center for Constitutional Rights has aggressively advocated for al Qaeda for years. CCR is the backbone of the Gitmo Bar, coordinating the representation of al Qaeda detainees by the legions of volunteers from our country's major law firms. While doing so, CCR has pushed for the indictment of Bush administration officials for war crimes and bragged that its recruitment of lawyers effectively shut down interrogations, depriving the United States of vital wartime intelligence. What more does CCR need to do to prove that, as between the United States and the Islamists, CCR is with the Islamists?  

Paul and Jonah also discuss the Gitmo Bar, and the DOJ lawyers therein, as if they were a monolith. Clearly, they are not. That's the reason many of us have been arguing for disclosure and political accountability not for disqualification.

Take Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, for example. He was the chief counsel for Qaeda operative Salim Hamdan, and ultimately convinced a sharply and ideologically divided Supreme Court to invalidate the Bush military commissions. Further, he did more than just represent Hamdan's legal position, he advocated on his behalf — publicly portraying him as a low-ranking nobody who was excluded from al Qaeda's high-level decision-making. In fact, Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's personal driver and confidant who had missiles (intended for firing at U.S. forces) in his possession when he was captured.

Now to me, it was a very bad thing to volunteer for Hamdan during wartime and under circumstances where the commission rules guaranteed him competent military counsel (i.e., he didn't need volunteer private counsel). Neal could have done a lot better things with his time and talent, so I think it's a mark against him. But it's not the total picture. Hamdan, after all, was accused or war crimes and therefore was entitled to counsel (most Qaeda detainees are challenging their detention and are not entitled to counsel). In representing him, Katyal was performing a necessary function (even if it wasn't necessary that he do it). What's more, Katyal is a serious, pro-American scholar and national security thinker who has proposed (along with Jack Goldsmith) the creation of "a comprehensive system of preventive detention" under the auspices of a national security court — an idea I've been harping on for six years.

Let's contrast Jennifer Daskal, another of of DOJ's former Gitmo lawyers. She is a left-wing extremist recruited by Attorney General Holder for DOJ's National Security Division despite a complete lack of prosecutorial experience. What is her experience? Well, in 2006, she campaigned for the UN Human Rights Committee to condemn the United States for its waging of the "so called 'war on terrorism,'" for what she portrayed as our serial violations of international law obligations, for our "cloak of federalism" (which she described as the means by which the U.S. defies international governance at the state and local level); for our purported infliction of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on Muslim detainees at Gitmo and on all prisoners held in U.S. "supermax" prisons, etc.

Moreover, when al Qaeda operative Omar Khadr murdered an American soldier on the battlefield, she tirelessly championed his cause, arguing that his prosecution violated his rights as a child (he's now 23), that our detention of him transgressed various international law obligations, and that the United States was to blame for the Omar Khadrs of the world (see the YouTube clip, here). When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wanted to plead guilty in his military commission proceeding, she was claiming that his confession was suspect because he'd been tortured even as he couldn't stop bragging to anyone who would listen about all the atrocities he'd committed against the U.S. and about how Islam would ultimately vanquish the U.S.

Here is where the Obama administration's stonewalling on the Gitmo lawyers is truly infuriating. Why should Americans not know all these facts? If there was transparency, most people would find Daskal's role at DOJ frightening. On the scale of lawyers as ideologues, she seems to be about where CCR is. On the other hand, I sleep better at night knowing Neal Katyal is at DOJ. I don't agree with him about many things, and he'd never be Deputy Solicitor General in a conservative administration. But President Obama won the election, and he has the right to fill the slots with progressive lawyers. Katyal is a progressive lawyer who doesn't think we should be using military commissions to try terrorists. I disagree, but so what? That's what a the policy debate is about, and our side doesn't hold people ineligible because we disagree with them on policy. Meantime, Katyal accepts that terrorists are a major threat to the United States and that we have to have a system for detaining them even if we can't convict them of crimes. He's right — and one wishes more people in the Obama Justice Department saw it that way.

Finally, if Jonah and I have a disagreement over the distinction between Islam and Islamism, it's awfully hard to find. I didn't make "an argument for getting rid of the labels"; I made an argument for having them. I said I'm not sure there's any substantive difference between Islam and Islamism, but that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not want to impose or live in a sharia society, and that we need to encourage those people so we need a separate designation for them. Even if we're convinced that the root problem is their religious creed (as I am), many of them are trying to reform it, and we don't help them by telling them their belief system is incorrigible.

Jonah says he thinks Charles Krauthammer's distinction between Islam and Islamism is not only a practical necessity but "valid on the merits." Respectfully, I don't think either Dr. K or Jonah has made a case for how Islam and Islamism differ on the merits. I think they are making a deductive case that (a) because Islamists include terrorists and (b) because most Muslims are not terrorists, (c) Islam must therefore be different from Islamism. But that doesn't tell us how the tenets of Islamism supposedly differ from those of Islam. And although one need not be a Muslim to study and understand Islam, it's worth pointing out that while Charles and Jonah are not Muslims, many of the world's leading Islamists are Muslims graduated with doctorates in Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning. I think non-Muslims who propose that the true Islam is different on the merits from the belief system espoused by scholars who have been steeped in Islam for their entire adult lives have a very steep mountain to climb. That we want Islam and Islamism to be different — and I do — does not make it so.

Genetically Modified Food...it's not nice to fool Mother Nature!

After you have watched the video presentation you may want to read the following:
1.  Dial M For Murder...no, no, no, not the movie! Monsanto !!!
2.  Whoever controls your food, controls YOU
3.  Genetically Modified Food: Pros and Cons
4. GMF ...Genetically Modified Food - Are you swallowing this?
5. Genetically Modified Foods (from Oprah's Website) ...added April 28, 2010
6. Seeds Of Deception a must see video ...added April 28, 2010
7. Seeds To Kill a must read ...added April 28, 2010
8. Supreme Court hears arguments on genetically modified seeds call your Congressman! added April 28

This is presented here for you to educate yourself regarding the food you eat and although I have some expertise in the food industry (over forty years in the food manufacturing industry both in private industry, including as a food industry (Eastern U.S. and Canada) consultant in the early 1990's and as a procurement quality assurance inspector for the government), I do not have a final opinion on genetically modified foods (GMF) ... But it does concern me deeply! ...as it should you.  As you go about studying the various articles and professional papers presented on  GMF's each side of the controversy will present points in their own self interests.  To say that there is a conspiracy surrounding the 'who-controls-the-food-controls-you' theater of operations has plenty of food for thought (pun intended).  And when one is undecided (meaning my final opinion) we usually say, "May the best man win." but in the case of the huge food corporations it looks as though the Jolly Green Giants may have the final word.  I should also point out that the government (FDA) appears to be leaning to, if not, down right approval of those that wish to tamper with Mother Nature...and we all know it's not nice to fool Mother Nature. ~ Norman E. Hooben

PS:  Normally I would suggest that you grab a bag of popcorn and watch the movie but after you see the movie you may want to consult with me first.

Attention People of Canada...   Your mission: Remove the judge(s) that made the ruling depicted in the video.  ...any which way you can! ...although I'm not a proponent of hanging, I could chip in and buy the rope!