Ban artificially genetically modified foods from your personal diet where possible. It is very difficult to do, because the government has allowed the GMO producing and supplying corporations to mask whether or not the food in question is a GMO. They are not required to divulge the information on their labels. It's evil of course. Organic foods are also more expensive, unfortunately. It's all for the buck to some at the greater expense of the rest.

One way to help to be surer you are not consuming GMO foods is to buy only those that are certified as not including them. This is a place where the greedy and sinful have move government via lobbying and huge campaign donations to make such disclosures illegal. They claim that just by telling people that a product isn't a GMO, it suggests that there is something wrong with GMOs.

Well there is something wrong with them. Read the following linked article.

"Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops"
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety
Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops
Institute for Responsible Technology
IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)


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.
    • @Aromatherapy -


      I apologize for how long it took to approve your comment. My web-hosting service or the Internet route to them was apparently experiencing problems up to just a few moments ago. I must go out now, so I won't be able to respond to your comment for a little while. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Thank you also for visiting the site, reading the post, and leaving your comment.

      God bless,

      Tom Usher

    • @Aromatherapy -


      Welcome from Greece! Let me get this out of the way first. I love Greek food! Okay. I'm usually not what is called silly (a misnomer; should never have become a pejorative) in my comments, and I don't really intend to be here. It's just that it would probably come across as I'm trying to be sort of funny by emoting that way. Frankly, Greek food and what is generally termed Mediterranean food here in the U.S. is very healthy and delicious, as you are no doubt aware living in Greece yourself and being Greek perhaps.

      When I lived in Phoenix, Arizona, (where John McCain lives; Yes, I've met him) I would go to a little restaurant on Bethany Home Road and 16th Street I think it was/or is. The place is/was called the Mediterranean. Well, I would always order the vegetarian plate. I could have eaten two each time.

      Now, about GMO and Europe, I have read that same thing that Europe doesn't allow it in the stores. However, I've read contradictory stories about how Europe is allowing GMO in from the U.S. and is planting GM crops in Europe. It is my understanding that the French are nearly up in arms about it.

      The good news though is that the recent financial collapse is giving Europe an opportunity to better stand up to the U.S. America shot itself in both feet electing George W. Bush and his neocon handlers. Now though, America is in a greatly weakened position on all fronts — even militarily (although I certainly don't advise anyone to test American brinkmanship, including under Obama — he has way too many neocons in his ears — one is too many).

      Anyway, while Europe is going about the intelligent business of making real friends of Russia and setting down clearly needed rules to keep the mundane worldly ones from killing all the saints even with their insane economic abortions, it should firm up its stand against GM foods. It should put tariffs on American goods of all kinds until America backs off harming the health of the planet. It should take the lead, since the U.S., with the exception of pockets in California and a few other places, doesn't seem willing to rein in selfishness for the good of all — for the general welfare as called for by the Preamble to our U.S. Constitution. — something the Wall Streeters regularly trash.

      Don't get me wrong here. The moves I'm suggesting are not good enough. They aren't even close. They are only better than not.

      I'm not for coercive democracy. I'm for convincing people to do things together voluntarily. It's a really hard sell though. I haven't had a taker here in the U.S. yet. I'm heartened though that there are apparently many Christian communists in Greece. My hope is that many of them can come to understand how Marx (violent and Godless) and Jesus (pacifistic) are incompatible. If they can do that, then they can create pockets of the Christian Commons in Greece where so-called laypersons can live communally as Christians growing organic food for themselves and the poor. That's my plan for everywhere.

      My position, of course, is that GM is a terrible idea. There are things that human beings can do very well. Genetic engineering is not one of them yet, far from it. It is an extremely arrogant thing that humans are pushing GM into the open markets and especially without disclosing it. It is even terrible that there is all the cross-pollination going on. It's ruining the beautiful corn varieties in Mexico — the best in the world — that have been handed down carefully from generation to generation for thousands of years. It's a crime and sin. It's an incalculable loss.

      I'm not opposed to humans investigating things, thinking, trying different things, etc. What I'm opposed to is the reckless disregard for the damage that hyper greedy fools risk putting everyone through by prematurely rushing to market when they should have enough ethical restraint to say that their product isn't ready and may never be. If they can do it with mortgage-backed securities, they can do it (pump out toxic garbage) with genetically engineered organisms too. They are not to be trusted. They are way too careless. They really don't think out into the future very well except in unrealistic terms driven by visions of wealth from their proprietary, patented junk.

      That's the way it is.

      They will fail and fall as greed should and must.

      God bless the greedless,

      Tom Usher

    • Thanks God, here in Greece (and I think in all countries of European Union) genetically modified foods are not allowed in stores. However, sometimes foods are withdrawn because they contains GMO.

    • @Aromatherapy -

      Hello Again,

      Whenever a commentator's valid comment is sent to the spam database, I try to remember to let the commentator know that so he or she may possibly avoid sites that are refusing to approve submitted and valid comments. Some sites may be marking such comments as spam for no good reason but rather to be spiteful. Both of your comments submitted on the RLCC site went to spam. I had to de-spam them. That helps to retrain the shared database but might not be enough to clean up the spiteful or careless acts of others.

      Now to the subject at hand, thank you for checking some more. I was working from memory, and sometimes the original info can be in error too. It's good to have some double coverage.

      I believe that now is the time for Europeans to really push hard to keep out GMOs. The U.S. is in a much weakened position right now what with the loss of credibility over the wars, banking, and so many other things. There is no way that Europe should just trust the U.S. corporations that GM foods are safe.

      Spread the word over there as much as you are able. Network with others in EU-member states. Get them to come together as Europeans against U.S. GMOs.

      You need a huge grassroots push-back in every country over there.

      GM is going to get a real going over (reexamination) over here once the Democrats get settled in as the party nearly controlling every branch of the U.S. government. If the push-back (non-violent of course) is strong in Europe at the same time, it will have a much larger impact.

      Thanks for coming back with your comment. Make it a habit.

      It may seem strange to some that a Christian would be taking this approach, but the truth is that GMOs have come out from selfishness and darkness for private gain from the greater loss for the many. There is nothing inconsistent about what I've written here with the teaching of Jesus. I will say though that regardless of what the selfish, greedy ones do, God still has the power to set everything right again. The evil ones can do nothing that God can't undo.

      God bless,

      Tom Usher

    • Hi Tom, nice to meet you.

      I did a quick search and I found that you were right. Generally European Governements are against imports of GMO, but lately there has been a debate in order to decide if GMO foods are good for people or dangerous.

      Obviously, companies are forcing the European Commission to accept GMO foods and it seems that they will managed that. I read that this months E.C. allowed GM soya from Bayer CorpScience.

      Unfortunately, we will lose this fight...

    • Hi Tom,

      Thank you for approving my comments and sorry for my poor english...

      Back to the subject. I found an interesting presentation about "The European policy and market on GMOs" that shows clearly that especially european citizens are against introduction of GMO foods into food chain and our environment. You can check this at

      Moreover, is a web site with purpose to protect europe from GMO. Unfortunately it has a few broken links but it suggests some good actions that everyone can take against gmo http://(" target="_blank">(

    • @Aromatherapy -


      Lots of blog owners block commercial sites. I don't unless the comment has nothing to say or is too offensive. I don't have a problem with your selling aromatherapy in this capitalistic world.

      I'd like to see giving-and-sharing (no-charge) aromatherapy as part of the Christian Commons though along with caring about light, color, sound, massage, and all the rest of the sensory inputs.

      There's nothing wrong with any of it if it's done with the right spirit in mind and heart (harmless and truly ultimately beneficial).

      Thanks for the links. The first is a Power Point presentation, is it not? I have Open Office that I believe will handle it. I have too much on my plate (too many windows open just now). I'll try to remember to come back to it though after I've finished my general news reading.


      Tom Usher

    • @Aromatherapy -

      Hi Again,

      Yes, OpenOffice handled it just fine:

      The European policy and market on GMOs

      SAARC Rice Expo

      Mumbai, 8th December 2004

      Eric Gall

      Political Advisor

      Greenpeace European Unit

      Rue Belliard 199

      Brussels, Belgium


      GMOs need to be authorised to be imported

      Authorised GMOs must be labelled

      Strong consumer rejection of GMOs

      Non-GM market

      Ongoing political controversy

      The EU Authorisation system

      Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs in the environment

      Regulation 1829/2003 on GM Food and Feed

      EU-wide approval, maximum 10 years

      Complex case by case risk assessment involving 25 Member States and the European Commission

      The EU Authorisation system

      Precautionary principle

      Long-term and cumulative toxic effects on health

      Immediate or delayed, direct or indirect, long -term and cumulative effects on the environment

      Moratorium in 1999

      National bans (« safeguards clauses »)

      No tolerance for unapproved GMOs (0%)

      Labelling and Traceability of GMOs

      Regulation 1830/2003 on Traceability and Labelling of GMOs (18th April 2004)

      Broader scope of labelling : living GMOs but also to GMOs containing or consisting of or derived from an ingredient which contains more than 0.9% of GMO (oil, starch, sugar, glucose, alcohol, etc.), irrespective of whether they can be detected in the final product or not, both for food and feed

      Detection methods must be provided by the producer of the GMO, and be validated by the EU

      Labelling and Traceability of GMOs

      Documentation requirements are set up in order to enable the monitoring of GMOs, their traceability along the food chain, the withdrawal of GM products in case a problem is identified for the environment or human health, food and feed labelling for consumer information

      Exporters must disclose the precise list of GMOs contained in the shipment

      GMOs in a shipment or in products must be identified by their Unique Identifier Code, attributed according to the system developed by the OECD

      Labelling and Traceability of GMOs

      These documents must be transmitted from operator to operator all along the production chain

      Operators have to keep the record of the transactions for 5 years

      Adventitious (accidental) presence of approved GMOs up to 0,9% per ingredient exempts the products from the labelling requirements. The operator must prove he has taken all appropriate steps to avoid such contamination

      Controls by national authorities of Member States

      European Network of Laboratories

      Market Situation

      The EU, with its 455 million consumers, is one of the biggest food markets in the world in terms of value.

      Estimated food and drink sales in the enlarged European Union, Switzerland and Norway in 2002 reached the amount of 1,069,010 million Euros

      Complete non-GM market for food products

      Increasing non-GM demand for feed products

      Retailers’ policies

      14 of the 30 top European retailers have a policy of not selling, under their own brand name, any products that would need to be labelled as “genetically modified” in all their European markets (Carrefour, Auchan, Sainsbury´s, Safeway, Marks & Spencer, Coop Switzerland, Coop Italy, Migros, Big Food Group, Somerfield, Morrisons, Kesko, Boots, Coop UK)

      A further 7 companies (Tesco, Rewe, Metro Group, Casino, Edeka, Lidl, Tengelmann) have given a non-GM-commitment for their own-brand products in their main European markets

      Retailers’ policies

      The combined European grocery sales in 2003 of the companies with a non-GM policy in place and companies committed to achieving a non-GM standard, amounted to more than EUR 322,000 million.

      This is 64% or nearly two-thirds of the grocery sales of the 30 top retailers in Europe.

      Food and Drink producers’ policies

      Food and Drink producers policies: 22 of the 30 most important companies have given a non-GM commitment throughout the enlarged European Union including Nestlé, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Diageo, Kraft Foods (Altria), Masterfoods (Mars), Heineken, Barilla, Carlsberg, Arla Foods, Dr. Oetker, InBev (Interbrew), Heinz, Chiquita, Cirio del Monte, Orkla, Ferrero, Northern Foods, Eckes Granini, Bonduelle, Kellogg and McCain

      13 companies have given a global company-wide non-GMO commitment (Diageo, Heineken, Barilla, Carlsberg, Arla Foods, Dr. Oetker, Chiquita, Cirio del Monte, Orkla, Ferrero, Northern Foods, Eckes Granini, Bonduelle)

      Public Opinion

      In 2001, 70.6% of European consumers did not want GMOs in their food, 94% wanted to have the choice to eat it or not (Sondage n° 55.2 réalisé par Eurobaromètre dans tous les Etats membres de l’Union Européenne en mai et juin 2001, étude « Europeans, Science and Technology » diffusée en décembre 2001)

      In Europe, in 2002, more than 65% of Europeans said they would not buy GMOs, even if they were less expensive than conventional products

      Public opinion

      In 2003, 83% of British and 81% of Germans said they were against GMOs,3367,1575_A_99320...

      in 2004, 76% of French declared they were against GMOs and 80% thought that farmers should not grow GMOs

      Public Opinion

      In 2003, 89% of Americans thought that the US Food and Drug Administration should not introduce GMOs into the environment or in the food chain if it has not been proven they are safe

      In 2001, 88% of Mexicans consumers asked that GMOs be labelled; in 2002, 87% of Chinese and 80% of Japanese consumers wished the same

      Governmental attitudes

      EU Commission lifted the moratorium on GMOs in May 2004 with approval of Bt11 sweet maize for import, despite lack of support from governments and scientific concerns

      Syngenta announced that they would not market the maize in Europe

      Governmental attitudes

      29th November 2004 vote of governments on safeguard clauses : 12 out of 25 MS voted against the lifting (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland); 10 countries abstained (Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia); 3 voted in favor of the lifting (Netherlands, Portugal, UK)

      No GM Rice allowed in the EU

      Only one application for the import and processing of Bayer’s LL Rice 62

      9 MS out of 15 raised objections to the authorisation in April 2004 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain) for fear of adverse health effects and outcrossing

      Rice producers worried about contamination in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and France

      Contamination controversy

      No cultivation, « co-existence », seed contamination

      National laws to protect conventional and organic agriculture from contamination

      E.g. Germany: a “joint and several liability” compensation scheme which compensates conventional and organic farmers if cross-contamination through GMOs causes economic damage

      GMO-free Regions across Europe


      No tolerance for unapproved GMOs

      Mandatory Labelling and Traceability

      Strong consumer rejection followed by European retailers and companies

      No Market for GMOs

      Contamination controversy, GMO-free zones movement and liability laws

      I see that there are retailers in Europe that have not banned GM foods from their shelves. That's not good! They are harming their customers. It's an evil thing to do for private profit or any profit. In fact, it's no profit at all but rather a liability. In Christian terms, it's a sin. There's no doubt about it.


      Tom Usher

    • You're right Tom, the first one is powerpoint file (I don't know if open office is compatible with these files)

      Now something a little bit offtopic. There are some forums where aromatherapist or other kind of therapists swap their professional services for free.