On Tuesday, January 15, 2008, the FDA declared cloned meat and milk safe as human food. They say it's just another reproductive technology. Do you want to eat it or its offspring?

The FDA isn't going to require labeling even though approximately 1/3 of people in the U.S. don't want to eat the offspring of clones under any circumstances. Cloned food should be labeled. People should have a choice. The rich should not ram these things down people's throats. This is being forced on people. It's highly unreasonable of the federal government to allow this to go forward without labeling. If people come down with diseases later on (say decades later), the absence of labeling will make tracing the disease back to cloned food more difficult. That's why they don't want labeling.

They say cloned products are not different. Why do so many die of birth defects? What don't the scientists know? This is just a rush for money. The animals are not perfectly normal. Many get sick and die early. The people behind this are being extremely shortsighted. They are lying to people when they say that this is as artificial insemination. It isn't comparable.

Artificial ingredients, GMO foods, cloned foods, nanotech foods: This is all leading to eugenics and cloning human body parts and then whole human bodies and blank brains and cyborgs for consciousness and memory transplants for human longevity.

There is no trust in the hereafter. There is little to no trust in God.

It is obvious that they are willingly gambling with everybody's health. They really aren't sure about the long-term impact. One can hear them claiming that the risks are acceptable since the benefits for the wealthy cloning-corporations and others outweigh any potential long-term negative health consequences.

Read it for yourself in the excerpts from "Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment," January 2008, by the Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, posted on, Monday, January 14, 2008; 9:46 PM.

Here's a thoughtful article and discussion below it: "good time to go vegan," posted by notnotabouthim. January 17, 2008.

Well, as a Christian, I must say that this life is not the real life. It's a filter.

The FDA IS Sheepish

17 Jan 2008 by Errol Blogs  
Other genetic complications with cloned animals include shortened chromosomes called telomeres, which lead to faster aging then conventional animals. Now did you want that steak rare or medium-rare? Many questions remain, such as why ...

Potato Baked and a Science Lab Steak

9 Jan 2008 by Stuff 2 Discuss  
Scientists believe that she died early, at the age of six, due to the shortening of telomeres (a DNA, science related issue). I am just not convinced that we should eat food from cloned animals. Cloning is a fairly new science and it ...

This next one is just oh so trusting of the major corporations. He starts his article by stating, "Is meat from cloned animals unsafe? Most people would say, "No, of course not, what kind of stupid question is that?" Well, most people don't take that attitude, thank God, literally. They are smart enough to look at the bad direction that greed takes people.

Is meat from cloned animals unsafe? Most people would say, "No, of ...

28 Dec 2006 by S  
The world is a strange place, and I suppose it's very remotely conceivable that eating meat with shortened telomeres when Venus is in conjunction with Pluto could anger some petulant pagan god or another. But until someone at least ...


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.