WHEN IS ORGANIC FOOD NOT ORGANIC? WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED AND ALLOWS CRONY CAPITALISTS TO CONTROL AND RUIN EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD AND PURE IS THE ANSWER.

WHEN IS ORGANIC NOT ORGANIC? WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED AND ALLOWS CRONY CAPITALISTS TO CONTROL AND RUIN EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD AND PURE IS THE ANSWER.

What's the matter with these people? Are they insane? There is a huge dust-up about the term organic, as in organic food. Lots of major "food" corporations want to cash in and have been cashing in. They want to be labeled organic. Rather than become organic though, they push for organic to be defined away. They push for non-organic to be labeled organic. They push for synthetics to be labeled organic. Look, if you want to become organic, then become organic. Organic is purely organic. There is no 99% organic that is 100% organic. If they want to sell stuff that isn't completely organic, then label it as partially organic. Label the ingredients that aren't organic as what they are: synthetic. If the complete product is 99% organic, then say so. If the 1% that is non-organic is pure poison, then ban it. If it's questionable, then ban it. If it has been shown to be highly likely harmless, then it will be up to those who dissent to publicize their dissenting opinions, which should not be censored under any circumstances unless they are not based upon facts and are maliciously intended to destroy legitimate enterprises (mundanely legitimate).

Right now, food that is only 95% organic is labeled organic. That's evil. That's lying. That's making it impossible for consumers to choose purely organic foods without having to do huge independent research. That was never intended by the people who invented the concept of organic foods — the "health food nuts." It is those people who came up with the whole industry who should have been the arbiters. Too bad so many of them sold out to the devil: the huge food corporations that bought them up and then turned organics into 5% synthetics. What a rip off. I hate capitalism.

This is like saying your a Christian but you only believe in Jesus 95%.

(See: "Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label Is Questioned," by Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton. Washington Post. July 3, 2009.)

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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.