In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve.

... A new report by GRAIN and Focus on the Global South has found that new legislation in Iraq has been carefully put in place by the US that prevents farmers from saving their seeds and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations. ("Pay Monsanto, or Starve," Celsias. March 2, 2007.)

The linked article also covers something I written about several times on this website about the evil courts in Canada that think it's fine that Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds and pollen are polluting even organic farms and that when Monsanto does that, the farmers who are polluted by Monsanto have to pay Monsanto. It's evil and insane and will not stand. God hates this kind of stuff.

Satan is just itching to be set free to rake Monsanto and the courts over the coals for following him, Satan. It may not make any sense to the vast majority of people, but that's the way it is. If God pulls God's protection, Satan, who hates human kind and thinks we all ought to be dead and tortured afterwards for eternity and who accuses the whole of humanity day and night before God, will have free reign against the likes of Monsanto, the Canadian court, and the U.S. neocons. Satan eats his greedy demons alive.

No one has the right to tell anyone else that he or she may not save seed or plant and raise food. No one has the right to patent seeds that people have been saving and using for thousands and thousands of years. The Church doesn't recognize any such authority. The Church will save its seed and will not pay Monsanto or anyone else for polluting Church farmland. It doesn't matter what the U.S. government says about it. It doesn't matter what laws they think they put into place in Iraq or in Canada. If they persist with their despicable efforts, the Holy Spirit will not stand between them and the wrath to come. Turn or be cut off and burned up. That's the way of it.

Look, who's harming whom? Who's doing the violence? Who's the greedy, violent, depraved bunch? It isn't the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and his wife in Canada.

In a key part of the ruling, the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen — but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.

It was that part of the ruling that most upsets Percy Schmeiser. The implications are wide ranging and Schmeiser has launched an appeal that was heard on May 15 & 16, 2002 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected Schmeiser's appeal. Schmeiser then asked for leave from Canada's Supreme Court to hear the case. Leave was granted in May 2003 and the case was heard on January 20, 2004.

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay.

If someone enters into a contract with Monsanto to use Monsanto seed and to not save and plant seed from the crop, that's an agreement that the parties ought to honor. However, if someone does not enter into any such contract and doesn't illegally obtain Monsanto seed and that seed blows in or the crops are pollinated by Monsanto crops, that's Monsanto's problem. What's more, Roundup Ready seeds and crops were are and remain a bad idea to have been released in nature. That's documented. Anyone spending a few hours on the Internet searching will find plenty of information about the hazards and problems with Roundup Ready.

It's ruining the purity of natural seeds. Human beings don't know enough to have released artificially engineered crops. It's ruining the biodiversity that protects against catastrophic plant diseases. When a disease comes along that targets the Monsanto crops, there will be a severe shortage of food.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.