Ron Paul, will you finally stand up tall against Monsanto? Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate!

I know so many people who LOVE Ron Paul, but he's been so silent on Monsanto that it's sickening.

Ron Paul is anti-war. Well then, tell him to stop the Monsanto war against the whole planet. People are becoming dead from Monsanto -- every bit as dead from predator drones. Ron Paul's silence on this is worse than gross negligence. He's actually misleading people down the de-regulation, Pied Piper, path over the chemical cliff to Hell, death, and destruction.

Don't tell me that without all the government subsidies that Monsanto wouldn't be able to press on killing humanity either. Even if Ron Paul were to become the President, he'd face a House and Senate that would not simply do everything Ron Paul wants. In addition, there's the rest of the world where Monsanto can still ruin, ruin, ruin!

We cannot wait for a Congress that will end Monsanto before Ron Paul speaks out against Monsanto and for regulating what goddamn chemicals and genetically engineered monstrosities get to be released into the Commons that is the biosphere of Earth and beyond, quite frankly.

Stop just talking about the Fed, the Fed, the Fed. The Fed is only part of the problem.

Stop saying that we need to deregulate everything. Hell, we need to regulate Monsanto out of business.

I'm not saying we leave all the Monsanto workers to die either. There are options, good options.

Ban Monsanto's RoundUp! Experts Say It's Worse than DDT!
Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate

Take Action Now!

The EPA is currently conducting a "Registration Review" of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp. RoundUp is owned by Monsanto, recently named the worst company in the world by the Natural Society. The EPA will be gathering data on glyphosate through the summer of 2012 and making a final decision no earlier than 2015.

The EPA has the power to ban glyphosate, and it should, given glyphosate is:

- worse than DDT

- spawning super-weeds that reduce yields, and

- responsible for a deadly new pathogen that is plaguing plants with new diseases and animals (including humans) with infertility.
Please watch this documentary from Argentina on the dangers of glyphosate. The video, in two parts below, is in Spanish with English subtitles. If the subtitles do not appear automatically, start the video first, then click the arrow on the bottom right and select "Turn on captions." Then, click "Take Action" to send a letter to the EPA that contains links to scientific research that is leading experts to believe glyphosate is even more dangerous than DDT.

Take Action Now!

Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate!

via Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate!.

Donate


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 Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Whoever wrote this does not understand Ron Paul. Ron Paul  would deregulate Monsanto. Ron Paul would likely allow Monsanto to bring to market the many GM food products that are currently blocked by the FDA and the USDA.

      Ron Paul would leave regulating Monsanto up to "the States" or "the market." Ron Paul likely disapproves of a Federal regulatory body that Monsanto needs to come to for aproval on anything.

      I get where the writer is coming from. Ron Paul is anti-war and says some good things on civil liberties, but he is no enemy of Monsanto from anything that I have seen.

      Ron Paul is not what people think he is,  and the writer is keying in on one prominent aspect of this.

      • You misread it, Jesse.

        You wrote, "Ron Paul would deregulate Monsanto." That's what the article says. Look at it again. It's right there. That's the whole point against Ron Paul. Further deregulating Monsanto would be worse.

        Caveat emptor is the snake-oil salesman's friend. That's why we started regulating. Unfortunately, evil still exists, including within the regulating bodies because evil-minded, greedy, self-centered, shortsighted people weasel their way in and do the wrong things in terms of what's best for the general public, who shouldn't have to be biochemists, etc., before they buy food at the local grocery.

        Completely deregulating would do away with the little required food labeling we have. At the very least, we need GMO labeling, and it needs to be national and global.

    • Ryon Wallace

      I can appreciate your disdain for the likes of Monsanto, and I agree they are doing more harm than good with GMO technology. However, I don't believe the solution is to "regulate [them] out of business." This approach would depend on the same institutions that told us DDT was perfectly safe, and is akin to "letting the fox watch over the chicken coop."

      The fact is, Monsanto could not survive in their current form without their ability to exert force on politicians. If this was not true, why else would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions every year? Government subsidies and custom-tailored Monsanto-friendly legislation give companies like Monsanto an unfair advantage over competing organic producers. 

      I believe the reason Ron Paul hasn't been more vocal about this is because he doesn't think it is the federal government's responsibility to regulate the substances we choose to put into our bodies (be it food or otherwise). Adding more government regulation is not going to give us any more choices.  Instead, we need to continue educating people as to the negative consequences that are associated with GMO products. We need to abandon the mentality that we are helpless victims against the evil Monsanto, and the government needs to rescue us. For now, we are still the masters of the food we choose to purchase, and therefore we can support the cause for nutritional food. Remember- GMO crops exist only because people continue to buy them!

      • Well, the ultimate solution is the Second Coming. Short of that, of course it would be great were Monsanto to see the light and repent.

        That's not addressing your view though. Let me say that the object is to sway more and better than money does. That approach does work to a degree. It's not perfect, but until you're prepared to switch governments altogether to what's truly proper, what option is there other than letting Monsanto get away with massive pollution that is causing much more harm than the mainstream is discussing.

        Yes, Ron Paul doesn't think it is the federal government's responsibility. However, you don't have a choice to avoid all pollution. Monsanto's crops are contaminating organics. This is common knowledge. Organic producers are suing right now over it. Of course, their position is correct vis-a-vis Monsanto's.

        If governmental regulations say no to Monsanto contaminating organics, who cares about choices?

        If we continue to educate people about the negatives of GMO's, those people are going to demand regulations, such as labeling, which Monsanto doesn't want. Are you opposed to labeling so you may be an informed consumer?

        Who has the idea that we are helpless victims and that the government must rescue us? The object of the US government is that it is supposed to belong to us. Therefore, informed voters vote to protect themselves via their government. That's not being helpless. That's taking charge, as it should be in a representative democracy -- not that I'm for a representative, secular democracy running things.

        I'm for the Christian Commons. That's what I'm calling for and will continue to do so for as long as I'm able.

      • Ashleah L. Brack

        Ryon,  I agree that that consumers have the power, but unfortunately they don't have the knowledge. How can one say, "we chose" when we don't know the danger?  How do we know if something is or isn't gmo?  How do we know our local farmers corn is not contaminated?  We need government to represent the people on this issue just as many European countries have. 

        • Ryon Wallace

          We have a tendency to think that the government is the only entity which can perform those functions because perhaps that's all we've ever known. Government bureaucracies haven't exactly had the best track record for keeping us well informed about anything, let alone food safety. I wholeheartedly agree that people need to be informed, and I have no doubt the government has the *ability* to serve this purpose. I just don't see any evidence of it being the most efficient or reliable way. 

        • Unfortunately, GMO producers won't voluntarily label GMO's. They are also constantly trying to undermine the standards concerning "organic" and "natural."

          If (I don't know) you're a Ron Paul capitalist, then where's your alternative to government? Are you ready to set up a capitalist organization that inspects and certifies food according to Organic Consumer Association standards?

          Who will watch the watchers? It's an age-old problem in both the private and public sectors. Some people are just sociopaths. You can turn the other cheek -- take another bite, and/or you can ask the powers that be to do the right thing, whether they are in business or government or both.

        • Ryon Wallace

          How do you know if something is non-GMO? If we are talking about corn, for instance- if it isn't labeled as non-GMO, you can guarantee it *is* GMO. This is because it is substantially more expensive to produce it using non-GMO seed, so the only way they make up for the cost is to charge more for it. And the only way they will get anybody to pay more for it is if they brag about it being non-GMO. (I'm not saying any of that is a bad thing.)
          But if we are talking about the validity of the label- here's a list of both for-profit and not-for-profit certifiers that have stricter requirements than the USDA does for organics, for example: http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/ocdbt/displayCert_choose.php 
          These companies will survive or fail depending their reputation over time (unlike the USDA.) I'm for having more than just one choice. 

        • Some non-governmental certifiers are excellent at what they do in their limited capacity. However, you can't sue Monsanto right now for falsely labeling GMO's because they aren't required to label their GMO products as GMO. Labeling something as non-GMO is fine if it's non-GMO.

          What's your problem with the people telling their government to make Monsanto and Dow, etc. label GMO's as what they are? Is this just a "Libertarian" capitalist ideological thing with you?

          The current labeling isn't good enough. It won't be good enough in this hyper-greedy world until the government tells GMO suppliers to label or not sell. It's a simple thing. Ideology that stands in the way of people knowing which ear of corn is or isn't GMO and that companies, such as Monsanto, can get into big trouble if they try to sneak GMO's in as non-GMO is not a good thing.

          Do you eat GMO's? Do you or don't you want labeling requirements?

    • Ryon Wallace

      I can appreciate your disdain for the likes of Monsanto, and I agree they are doing more harm than good with GMO technology. However, I don't believe the solution is to "regulate [them] out of business." This approach would depend on the same institutions that told us DDT was perfectly safe, and is akin to "letting the fox watch over the chicken coop."

      The fact is, Monsanto could not survive in their current form without their ability to exert force on politicians. If this was not true, why else would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions every year? Government subsidies and custom-tailored Monsanto-friendly legislation give companies like Monsanto an unfair advantage over competing organic producers. 

      I believe the reason Ron Paul hasn't been more vocal about this is because he doesn't think it is the federal government's responsibility to regulate the substances we choose to put into our bodies (be it food or otherwise). Adding more government regulation is not going to give us any more choices.  Instead, we need to continue educating people as to the negative consequences that are associated with GMO products. We need to abandon the mentality that we are helpless victims against the evil Monsanto, and the government needs to rescue us. For now, we are still the masters of the food we choose to purchase, and therefore we can support the cause for nutritional food. Remember- GMO crops exist only because people continue to buy them!

    • RyonWallace

      I didn't see an option to post a reply to your most recent comment so I will post it here.

      >Do you eat GMO's?
      I make an effort to buy non-GMO products at the grocery store (usually Whole Foods, Trader Joe's or Sprouts). To me, it's worth the extra cost. But honestly, I don't really factor it in when I eat out. I guess I pick my battles, so to speak.

      >Do you or don't you want labeling requirements?
      I'll say first that I like labels on food better than labels on people ;) I've never thought to call myself a "Ron Paul capitalist" - but if it helps you to know where I'm coming from - then yes, I believe free markets and limited government is the best path to prosperity. But that opens up an entirely broader discussion.

      I think it's important to know what is in my food, and I like to trust those from whom I receive it. However, I would not feel justified forcing additional costs upon all US consumers for something I personally believe in. And how far would we go? Compulsory labels on food at restaurants? There could be benefits, but at what cost? The only way to prevent these costs from being passed directly to the consumer would be yet more subsidization (which is then imposed on the taxpayer).

      There is no doubt many people will find the advantages of all this outweigh the costs involved. But that is not the real question. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: is it worth the cost of demanding that all of your fellow citizens get on board with this program whether they like it or not?

      >It won't be good enough in this hyper-greedy world until the government tells GMO suppliers to label or not sell.
      What would lead you to believe bureaucrats are any less "greedy" than anyone else? Maybe we have different definitions of "greedy." Again, I would argue that Monsanto wouldn't exist in its current form if it weren't for today's rampant cronyism in government.

      Besides, this is not a binary choice. We are not limited to "petition the government to force Monsanto to label their products" or "allow the greedy corporate slime to poison us without recourse." It's my understanding that anything certified as organic is supposed to be GMO-free by definition. So the third choice is, of course, to educate and encourage people to buy organic/non-GMO.

      Should I assume you would task our illustrious FDA/USDA with this labeling endeavor? In my view, the food labels at present are inadequate, and would be both more accurate and more relevant if the FDA/USDA didn't have a monopoly on it. The FDA had no problem with us eating Pink Slime all these years.I imagine we probably share many of the same desired results, with the difference being the methods of achieving those ends. We also obviously have some fundamentally different ideas about the role of government. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I also don't think I have the right to coerce you to agree with me. That may be yet another difference between you and I. The way I see it, using the government to channel coercion is still using force. And the farther we depart from voluntary cooperation and exchange, the more we limit ourselves as a society.I'm no absolutist, nor am I an anarchist. There will always be a fit purpose for government- but the mere fact that we are having this discussion, in my opinion, is evidence that it has reached far, far beyond that purpose. Many minds have debated (and continue to debate) this issue, which is why I always try to keep an open mind, while never assuming I have all the answers. I only express that which has made the most sense to me so far.

      • The nesting of replies is limited. Overly nested replies become too narrow and long to read.

        So you don't bother avoiding GMO's when you eat out. Well, you're gambling with your long-term health. You aren't young, as in a little child. Consider the cumulative impact upon them since they are getting a much earlier start. Do you think the poor have access to all the same info you do? Can they afford to get to the stores that sell organic foods. Can they afford them, since mass produced mono-crop farming drives down prices (for a while) while providing lower nutritional value and not being very concerned about pesticides and herbicides, etc.? Wages are geared in many cases to just keeping the wage-slaves alive long enough to use them up long before any possible "retirement years." Low nutrition also impacts upon learning during children's informative years. None of these things can be left out of the equation. Those things are only the tip of the iceberg of proper considerations. In a very real sense in my mind, your freedom ends where my concern for other people's children begins.

        "I'll say first that I like labels on food better than labels on people ;) I've never thought to call myself a "Ron Paul capitalist" - but if it helps you to know where I'm coming from - then yes, I believe free markets and limited government is the best path to prosperity. But that opens up an entirely broader discussion."

        People call themselves "Ron Paul capitalists." I have zero problem with labeling people or being labeled so long as it's reasonably accurate. You may label me a Christian, for instance.

        "I think it's important to know what is in my food, and I like to trust those from whom I receive it. However, I would not feel justified forcing additional costs upon all US consumers for something I personally believe in. And how far would we go? Compulsory labels on food at restaurants? There could be benefits, but at what cost? The only way to prevent these costs from being passed directly to the consumer would be yet more subsidization (which is then imposed on the taxpayer)."

        I couldn't disagree more about the "costs." It is more expensive in the expanded sense of the term to allow evil companies such as Monsanto and Dow to poison the food chain. Let me ask you if you'd pick up a weapon, a gun, and use it to defend your "private" property? Now let me ask you (if you would use a gun in that case), what good is your "private" property going to be, what good is anyone's private property going to be, if everyone gets terminally ill from all the things all of these monster corporations are doing and certainly would do were there even less regulation? Don't tell me you actually think that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were wrong decisions that the people made via their elected representatives? Sure, democracy is messy. That's because human minds are messy. The answer is straightening thoughts, not hating government, per se. Good government is just that. As bad as government is, it's worse aspect is the influence over it by greedy banksters and corporatists. Take away what little government there is, and those sociopaths who don't give a damn about things other than getting theirs while the getting is so-called good would destroy the Earth just that much faster.

        In addition, the object of the Organic Consumer Association for instance is to make GMO unaffordable. What restaurant or chain will buy them and who will continue producing them once labeling is law?

        "There is no doubt many people will find the advantages of all this outweigh the costs involved. But that is not the real question. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: is it worth the cost of demanding that all of your fellow citizens get on board with this program whether they like it or not?"

        What's the cost? If "the advantages of all this outweigh the costs," then it's a net gain. Look, if you want to be perfect, that's great. I do. All I'm doing is standing up to Monsanto and saying to anyone and everyone to do the right thing. If the government listens and does that, how is that different from Ron Paul doing in government what you'd like to see? Ultimately, I'm for the government of the Holy Spirit within. I've been talking and writing about that for years and years now. Do you see the world clamoring to be righteous? I'm not saying that I haven't influenced people. I'm not saying that ultimately what I'm saying won't prevail. I'm saying that I have to connect on levels where people are. There are limits of course.

        I have the Christian Commons Project all outlined on this site. Tens of thousands of people have seen it – likely hundreds of thousands if the site logs are any indication. It doesn't get any less coercive than that: The Christian Commons. People don't rise to the occasion. Should I just shut up? That's not my understanding.

        "What would lead you to believe bureaucrats are any less "greedy" than anyone else? Maybe we have different definitions of "greedy." Again, I would argue that Monsanto wouldn't exist in its current form if it weren't for today's rampant cronyism in government."

        Of course, but it only gets worse if one doesn't rally people to stand together against Monsanto and the Koch brothers, et al. I suspect you wouldn't agree about the Koch brothers. Likely (but I'm open to hearing otherwise) you aren't really much of an environmentalist and may even buy into the notion that AGW is some sort of hoax. Well, the Kochs are major polluters and are spending vast sums to influence government not for the benefit of all but for the sake of their ideology that is a far, far cry from Christianity, which is what I'm most interested in.

        "Besides, this is not a binary choice. We are not limited to "petition the government to force Monsanto to label their products" or "allow the greedy corporate slime to poison us without recourse." It's my understanding that anything certified as organic is supposed to be GMO-free by definition. So the third choice is, of course, to educate and encourage people to buy organic/non-GMO."

        If you turn away from influencing voters to vote for others who will gather strength to say no to the likes of Monsanto, that doesn't mean that you stop educating people, quite the contrary. You do both, because you can't really do one without the other very well, if at all, and get anywhere.

        For one, certain rich corporations are trying to outlaw labeling. They want it to be illegal to say non-GMO on any label anywhere. Don't you understand that this is a war and you'll lose that kind of war if you just back away and say nothing to the government about what laws it should pass? If speaking out is coercive, then I'm coercive. I can't sit on the fence though. That's not Christian. Would I make violent war on those who own and run Monsanto and those who support Monsanto in government? No. That wouldn't be Christian either. I know the cost of my decision.

        This is really a regulation issue with you. Well, it is with me too. As I said, I want people to be self-regulated. However, there are mental defectives out there who will not do the right thing even when told. They don't restrain themselves in their pursuit of mammon. They consider everyone else who doesn't do the same to be weak and inferior for caring. I never here the "Libertarian" solution for dealing with those people. Would you take them out and shoot them? They're killing your relatives and you via slow poisoning. If you'd only draw the line at your parcel of land and maybe only band together in an emergency, the private mercenary armies of the sociopathic rich would wipe you all out.

        The current form of US government is still an experiment in whether the common citizenry can get it together for the benefit of all, even those sociopathic rich, and yes, whether they like it or not. Do you think anyone arriving there is going to like Hell? Well, Hell keeps trying to break in at this level and has done so to a large degree.

        I don't believe the US government is going to survive. I'm sure it's only a matter of time and not if. But it's hear now, and I'm speaking to it while I try to shame Monsanto and it's minions and dupes. If the powers that be listen and do well or don't, I will have spoken what needed to be said. I'm not for coercive government; but at the same time, I want Monsanto to lose more than I want the government to let Monsanto do so much damage that most everyone finally awakens when it's possibly too late.

        "Should I assume you would task our illustrious FDA/USDA with this labeling endeavor?"

        Write the law and sign it into law. Then the people have a legal footing. Right now, they are often nearly defenseless. Your way leaves Monsanto to legally poison everyone and with many people unable to opt for better food and with Monsanto redoubling and redoubling again until they've GMO'd everything that's GMO-able. I think your plan is not good. I think your plan is short-sighted.

        Look, you can say that the banksters should always have been allowed to fail and that therefore there never should have been any banking regulations necessary, or you can say that Glass-Steagall should not have been shredded. If the deregulators hadn't chopped into those things they should not have, we would not be faced with what we are. If the deregulators had not blocked proposed regulations when they were needed when what became the toxic, exotic derivatives where created, we would not be faced with what we are. In addition, the regulations that were put into place in the New Deal were addressed directly at the much more laissez-faire environment of the preceding eras. Letting them just fail and collapse versus bailing them has to be viewed against another option that was not exercised by the government, namely taking over the insolvent banks and managing their dissolutions to the maximum benefit of the general public that can't possibly be expected to do all of its own auditing via purely private means. This whole food debate with you is much along the same lines as the financial debate and all the other debate self-styled libertarians have with those who are more mixed-economy minded and hearted. I'm neither, as a reading of the Christian Commons Project outline clearly shows. Given the choice between Ron Paul's vision and some of the various economist of the post-Keynesian persuasion, I would go with the latter every time. I'm not completely stuck though although short of real miracles from on high, I'm not free.

        "In my view, the food labels at present are inadequate, and would be both more accurate and more relevant if the FDA/USDA didn't have a monopoly on it."

        You really believe that taking away the legal requirements for labeling would result in better labeling? Some people would improve upon them, but the general level would drop like a rock. Why were the labeling laws created in the first place? It wasn't because food producers and suppliers were doing a good or even adequate job.

        "The FDA had no problem with us eating Pink Slime all these years."

        Well, anti-regulators have won governmental seats, haven't they? Haven't they gotten into office and commenced to ruin the good intentions of the voters who want shoddy food producers to clean up their act or be driven from the market? Your plan lets them pop up somewhere else like snake-oil salesman of old – poisoning people and being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Those days are over. Mass food producers and drug makers can poison tens of millions in an matter of days if unregulated. They stole the life savings of hundreds of millions in a few months after having staged the whole thing and having their cronies strategically located. It wasn't well orchestrated, but they did consolidate at the top, just what the richest or the super-rich always really want. Capitalism is about monopoly for the "best players."

        "We also obviously have some fundamentally different ideas about the role of government. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I also don't think I have the right to coerce you to agree with me. That may be yet another difference between you and I. The way I see it, using the government to channel coercion is still using force. And the farther we depart from voluntary cooperation and exchange, the more we limit ourselves as a society. I'm no absolutist, nor am I an anarchist. There will always be a fit purpose for government- but the mere fact that we are having this discussion, in my opinion, is evidence that it has reached far, far beyond that purpose. Many minds have debated (and continue to debate) this issue, which is why I always try to keep an open mind, while never assuming I have all the answers. I only express that which has made the most sense to me so far."

        Well, that's a fairly reasonable statement. However, I told you previously that I'm not for coercion. In the end, I am an absolutist but the exact opposite of an anarchist. I'm for the 100% government of righteousness (who is my God) being within every living soul such that coercion becomes moot. I do not vote in any secular elections. Do you? If you do, you certainly are more coercive than I am.

        That said, I totally believe that one day God will separate the wheat from the chaff. Where souls end up, what the circumstances will be, who will be regretting what on account of how things are, I cannot say. I believe in consequences. I know that by speaking against Monsanto and saying to those with the power they sought to use it to protect the innocent is a compromise of sorts (within a certain context), but at the same time, I always say to Monsanto to quit being evil. So, is it the lesser of evils? Of course it is. Would I rather perfection right now? Of course.

        Peace to you. I have other things to which I must attend.

    • RyonWallace

      At first, I wondered why you singled-out Ron Paul for not speaking out against Monsanto. Let's see...it isn't one of those "I like Ron Paul for X and Y, but if only he stood up for Z" diatribes. Why isn't this article titled "Obama, will you finally stand up tall against Monsanto?" It's really more of a rant than a well written article... wait, I know the real reason you bring up Ron Paul. Having Ron Paul in the title is a CHEAP WAY TO BRING TRAFFIC TO YOUR BLOG that would otherwise receive no attention. 

      Why doesn't anybody care about the Christian Commons? Why doesn't your sad thermometer ever go past $0.2K? Because it promotes the over-zealous, control-your-personal-habits religiosity of the Right AND the need-for-a-nanny-state socialist Left. It's as if the two *worst* parts of both ends of the political spectrum had a simultaneous bowel movement, and combined the result to form an aggregated mass of intellectually vacuous fecal matter.
       
      Disrespectful? Perhaps. I'd say you deserve it for peddling this garbage. You can have your religion, and you can subscribe to whatever political philosophies you desire, but do not try to force them upon others- By means of the government or otherwise. That is the ultimate form of disrespect.Oh, and by the way, next time find a way to work Kim Kardashian into the headline- I hear that works great!

      • "...do not try to force them upon others...." Practice what you preach, Ryon. I do.

        The article mentioned Ron Paul because he has been running for President and has been on the wrong side about Monsanto. I write about plenty of people. Try not to be stupid and immature, Ryon.

        The thermometer would break if I were willing to go against Jesus while still claiming to be Christian. Think. I'm in it for truth, not mammon.

        That's it, son of perdition.

      • Try a site-search on "Obama" (http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?s=Obama) to see what you come up with. Check each article to see whether I also mentioned Ron Paul in the article if the same critique applies to Ron. Plenty of times, I could have included Ron Paul's name. What do I have to do, list every name that applies? That would be a mighty stupid requirement, wouldn't it. However, you're not a careful enough or deep enough thinker to anticipate that, are you. Also, do a site-search on "Obama Monsanto" without the quotation marks (http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?s=Obama+Monsanto). Try the same thing with Ron Paul. Then, realize how careless you were by attacking me on it.

        I make mistakes too. The question is whether one learns and grows in the right direction: toward the God of Jesus Christ.

        Of course I put Ron Paul in the headline. Ron Paul followers need to realize that Ron Paul's philosophy is not what they ought to be following. If everyone in the world were to do exactly Ron Paul's philosophy, the world would not be as good a place than if they were to all do exactly Jesus Christ's theology. That's the ultimate issue, not your choice between labeling food properly or not. If Ron Paul cared enough, he'd stand up and say that Monsanto is a wicked enterprise. The same goes for Barack Obama, and I've said so.

        "Obama used Jesus to get Romney. However, Jesus stands before God doing essentially the same thing that Jesus said Moses did concerning the so-called followers of Moses: showing the inconsistencies. Barack Obama is no follower of Jesus Christ. That fact stands out where no truly thinking person can miss it. Obama picks and chooses which bit of Jesus's teaching he, Obama, will misuse and abuse at any given time.

        "When it comes to taking care of the poor, Obama supports Monsanto. Monsanto has caused tens of thousands of small-farmer suicides in India alone. Where is the Jesus in Obama on that? He's missing." (http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/02/03/barack-obamas-thursday-february-2-2012-prayer-breakfast-speech-sickeningly-inconsistent.html)

        Did I put Ron Paul's name in that article? No, Ryon, I didn't. Did Obama followers comment as to why I didn't put Ron Paul's name in there too or suggest that I put Obama's name in the headline to garner traffic, as if that's a bad thing, by way of trying to reduce me to the level of those who use Kim Kardashian's name to that end? No, they didn't.

        So, Ryon, next time you get the urge to attack me, look in the mirror first.

        Also, try studying socialism and communism in forms other than the cherry-picked ones the Libertarians love to use, such as focusing on Stalinism (which was really state capitalism as much as anything). I am not, and never have been, for Stalinism or anything remotely associated with it. If you would have taken the time to get to know me and my deepest views, you would have, if intelligent enough, discovered what the Christian Commons concept is really all about: roots.

        Finally, if you judge right from wrong based upon the uninformed choices of people, then, again, look in the mirror. Why did Ron Paul do so poorly in the Presidential race? You judged me on the level of donations to the Christian Commons. Satan is extremely popular, Ryon. You're much close to that spirit than you are to Jesus Christ's.

        You haven't risen to the occasion, Ryon. You have some sort of sexual hang-up (doing what you ought not to be doing) and became upset with me upon learning that I've said to people that we all need to overcome. If you hate people who tell you the truth that hurts, then consider who has his claws deeply embedded in your soul even to the point of possibly getting you to believe that there is no soul.

        I would be glad were God to grant you the truth; but if that doesn't happen, I will be certain that it was because you rejected it. You sort yourself out.

    • yfpatucd

      This is a terrible article.  You bash RP for not speaking up against Monsanto in the first paragraph and then admit that Congress would block his actions even if he were to take a stand in the third.  Strong argument.  By the way, what other Presidential candidate is talking about Monsanto?  You act like Ron Paul alone has the sole authority to rid the world of Monsanto if he wanted to, but he just won't do it because hes a cruel, free-market libertarian.  This is ridiculous...terrible journalism. 

      If you are such a Monsanto guru, then you'd understand that Monsanto has one of the strongest political lobbies in Washington that go as far as recommending legislation to protect Monsanto's reign over the agricultural sector.  And here you are, bashing the first Presidential candidate in decades to sincerely address the problem that crony lobbyists pose to our economy, health, and freedom.

      • "You bash RP for not speaking up against Monsanto in the first paragraph and then admit that Congress would block his actions even if he were to take a stand in the third. Strong argument." So therefore, you never tell anyone to stand up against anyone or thing if Congress would not go along with it. Whose point is weak? It's yours.

        "By the way, what other Presidential candidate is talking about Monsanto?" How is that relevant? I call upon everyone to speak out against Monsanto. Why hasn't your hero, Ron Paul, done it? He hasn't done it because he's weak, like you.

        "You act like Ron Paul alone has the sole authority to rid the world of Monsanto if he wanted to...." You sure read things in, don't you. You just got through saying what shows that you know that Congress would block him were he to become President and attempt to rein in Monsanto, something he'd be too weak to stand up to even contemplate in earnest. If you realize that Congress would block him and if you realize that I realize it, don't you think your statement "You act like Ron Paul alone has the sole authority to rid the world of Monsanto if he wanted to...." is stupid? I do. It is. Try reading my other comments right here on this post. Try seeing where I've told many more than Ron Paul to stand up to Monsanto. I've told so many people I can't count them all -- from Barack Obama on down.

        "..., but he just won't do it because hes a cruel, free-market libertarian. This is ridiculous...terrible journalism." It's ridiculous and terrible to you because you have the same mental and spiritual disease he has. How could you possibly see your errors?

        "If you are such a Monsanto guru, then you'd understand that Monsanto has one of the strongest political lobbies in Washington that go as far as recommending legislation to protect Monsanto's reign over the agricultural sector." Tell me something I don't already know. I'm sure I know more about it than do you.

        " And here you are, bashing the first Presidential candidate in decades to sincerely address the problem that crony lobbyists pose to our economy, health, and freedom." Telling someone to stand up to Monsanto and to call them what they are doesn't constitute bashing the person, unless the truth smacks him around. If it does, that's his problem, not mine. As for Ron Paul being the first to do what you claim, that's hardly the truth. The list of candidates who have sincerely spoken out against lobbyists is very long. They just don't become President or even get their party's nomination if it's one of the two biggest parties.

        Try using your real name for a change rather than trying to conceal your identity. This is dung: http://www.facebook.com/BringRonPaulToUCDavis/info

        If your lack of the ability to think clearly is shown clearly in your comment here (it is), then I pity the people who will receive "treatment" from you. How much malpractice coverage will you be buying?

        Ron Paul is not the answer, not even close. He calls himself a Christian. You and I both know that, that's a joke.

      • Here's the truth. You come here in defense of Ron Paul, saying he's great for being against crony capitalism; but what's vastly more to the point is that if he were to do away with crony capitalism, we'd be left with laissez-faire polluters. Ron Paul is not an environmentalist. If he were and truthful, he'd be campaigning on a pro-environmental platform. Rather than do that, he talks about freedom and liberty as if choking to death on someone else's pollution is liberating.

        Not being pro-environmentalism is one of the dumbest things to ever come down the pike.

        I don't know how old you are, but I remember standing on one side of the street in southern California and not being able to see the tall building across the street. That was on a regular pollution day, not from some major brush fire blowing smoke into town. You could cut it with a knife. Plenty of major cities were really bad. What cleaned that up? Well, it wasn't laissez-faire capitalism, and laissez-faire capitalism would never have cleaned it up.

        Now, you might not like it that a majority of people got fed up with the filthy air caused in the US mostly by unbridled capitalism but also plenty of capitalists selling their industrialization to government, but I'm glad the air is better. It's not nearly clean enough and is getting worse in many ways that were not addressed by 1960's-era legislation.

        Where was Ron Paul on all of the landmark environmental legislation? He was whining against it, that's where.

        You don't know what real freedom is. And as far as your knowledge of economics, macro or micro, it's probably right there with Ron Paul's: not able to fill a thimble.

    • Ron Paul is the only candidate that WOULD  do something about this issue. He would hold corporations accountable for their actions. He goes more in depth on this topic in hisbook revolution: a manifesto .

      He Says, "personal responsibility means you don't get to kill/sicken people and blame it on "the corporation" You can go to prison, you can be sued for everything you own by your victims

      you pay the price for your disregard of the rights of others to have clean air, food and water

      that nobody has the "right" to pollute your air, food and water

      President Obama on the other hand, well lets look at his track record.

      President Obama knows that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government. On the campaign trail in 2007, he promised:
      We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's
      the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests
      ahead of the special interests.

      But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto, Dupont
      and the other pesticide and genetic engineering companies know they'll
      have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration.

      President Obama has taken his team of food and
      farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying,
      research, and philanthropic arms:

      Michael Taylor

      former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

      Roger Beachy

      former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant
      Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of
      Food and Agriculture.

      Islam Siddiqui

      Vice President of theMonsanto and
      Dupont-fundedpesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the
      Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative.

      Rajiv Shah

      former agricultural-development director for the
      pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as
      Obama's USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics and
      Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID.

      Elena Kagan

      who, as President Obama's Solicitor General, took
      Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa
      case, is now on the Supreme Court.

      Ramona Romero

      corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.

      I'm just sayin.

      • You wrote: 

        He [Ron Paul] Says, "personal responsibility means you don't get to kill/sicken people and blame it on "the corporation" You can go to prison, you can be sued for everything you own by your victims

        you pay the price for your disregard of the rights of others to have clean air, food and water

        that nobody has the "right" to pollute your air, food and water

        Where is/are the close quotation mark(s)? Regardless, Ron Paul doesn't hammer on the issue, does he.

        Suing people takes money. Suing some of the richest corporations on earth can take tons of money and way too much time. Plus, if the laws are weak, the courts fudge much more easily. 

        Investigation: Two Years After the BP Spill, A Hidden Health Crisis Festers

        I'd rather the government regulate Monsanto than poor people having to sue major corporations.

        Gypsy what?

    • Given a choice between only the two, I vastly prefer this progressive approach to the libertarian-capitalist one: Monsanto's Foxes, Pink Slime, and Mad Cow.

    • It's a nasty situation. If you painted  Cheney-Bush and their boys red with tails and pitchforks it would only be truth in advertising. When I combine my reading on environmental issues with the war on whistleblowers, government secrecy prohibiting government scientists from being a public resource ( up here too), and look at the tactics of 'public diplomacy' as part of aggression as surely as dysfunctional aid programs destroy fragile economies ( as sanctions do http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/12/19-december-sanctions.html ) - then it isn't a far stretch to heed the warnings implicit in the video  The Real Winner in Iraq was Monsanto
      http://www.thepanelist.net/opinions-culture-10084/1252-the-real-victor-in-iraq-monsanto
      You aren't alone in this fight   http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/10571/getting-to-vote-on-gmo-labeling

    • Thanks John. Those links were helpful to the cause of truth.