@OwenBenjamin Look into the man who was killed that day, and his connections. The event was definitely a ritual, blood on the ear/wrist/foot, but the man and his family were MOVED to EXACTLY where they were, by an unknown woman. Killing him was the other part of the plan. Allegedly...
It’s #ThrowbackThursday
On March 26, 2013, President Obama signed H.R. 933, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (a spending bill to avert a government shutdown).
Tucked into it as Section 735 (the “Farmer Assurance Provision”) was what critics immediately dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
https://t.co/vMcTT3ciSg
It was inserted quietly (reportedly with input from Sen. Roy Blunt and biotech interests) and many members of Congress claimed they weren’t fully aware of it when voting.
The provision required the USDA Secretary to immediately grant temporary permits allowing farmers to continue planting and selling certain genetically engineered (GMO) crops even if a federal court ruled against their approval (e.g., due to inadequate environmental review). It overrode court injunctions during the review process.
Timing and Media Coverage
This occurred around the time of major same-sex marriage debates (including Supreme Court arguments on Proposition 8 and DOMA in late March 2013). The bill signing got far less attention than those cultural issues, which fits the meme’s point about distraction. https://t.co/8kVQP1kEwL
It did receive significant coverage in alternative/left-leaning outlets, food advocacy groups (e.g., Food Democracy Now, Center for Food Safety), and some mainstream pieces (CBS, Guardian, Democracy Now), but it wasn’t wall-to-wall news compared to marriage equality.
https://t.co/iFYW6Inm1y
Duration and Impact~
It was temporary — in effect only until the end of the 2013 fiscal year (September 30, 2013). It was not renewed in subsequent spending bills. https://t.co/j3Ko55cHZm
Supporters (including Monsanto) called it a practical measure to protect farmers from disruptive court orders while USDA completed reviews. Critics saw it as corporate favoritism that put biotech companies above judicial oversight and potentially risked public health/environment. https://t.co/datkaLSJFS