Mary Gade worked for the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as its Region 5 Administrator. The US Midwest region, headquartered in Chicago, covers Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. She told Dow Chemical company to clean up its dioxin pollution. The EPA higher-ups sided with Dow Chemical over doing what's right. Mary Gade resigned and has rightly obtained/received press attention.
The Bush administration is in charge of the EPA. George W. Bush is in charge of his administration. Bush knows that the EPA has been less than extremely lax about protecting the environment. He knows it has facilitated polluters. Hence, Bush is evil-hearted and his whole administration and he should have been impeached and removed years ago.
In fact, he never should have been put into office since he "won" only vie cheating (election fraud; poll rigging).
Dioxin is a known carcinogen. It causes cancer and other diseases. Dow Chemical makes money making and selling it. If Dow Chemical were made to pay for the damage its product has caused, Dow Chemical and its insurance carriers would go broke. All the shareholders would lose the value of the stocks they couldn't sell in time (if anyone would buy those shares). Insurance premiums would go through the roof on dangerous chemicals. Some people would make lots of money though on account of such changes. Whole new industries and sections of industries would spring up.
Most importantly though, it would immediately become profitless and bankrupting to engage in making and/or selling products that are bad for the environment unless completely contained. Accidents do happen though. Some things ought not to be made.
If a company makes and sells something and does everything a "reasonable" person would expect a company ought to do to prevent making and marketing a dangerous product without adequate safeguards and then new dangers are discovered, society as a whole certainly ought to help (share the burden of clean-up).
However, if a company knowingly acts recklessly and does not repent and atone, the people and the people's government ought to decide that that company is a heathen and treat it accordingly. It is outside. It is an outlaw.
If the people's government protects polluters over the general welfare of the people as a whole, the people have a right and duty to replace that government with a government that will put the general welfare over polluters.
The proper way of replacing an evil government with good government is by changing each and every heart within the body politic (all the people). The people simply must change their hearts from the system that brought the evil ones to power to the system that will bring righteous ones to power. Only consistency starting with unselfishness as the root emotion that then stems throughout all existence will set things right.
Under a good government, all risks are fully borne by all as one. God then removes what are now termed risks. Goodness is reflected back upon itself.
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)