Why is the lead contamination of Michelle Obama's White House vegetable garden a blessing? It's a blessing because it has greatly heightened awareness now about the problems of using sewage sludge on farm and other land.
It's a real shame that sewage sludge was used on the White House lawn. The problems were known back then. The Clintons though didn't have foresight about using the White House grounds to raise food. Of course, what could anyone have expected from a founder of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)? Yes, Al Gore also helped get that wicked compromising strategy going rather than doing the right thing.
The idea was nothing more than a Machiavellian strategy (triangulation) to gain power. It was not done for principled reasons. Rather than learn the real history and educate the people, Clinton took the lazy way to power. The idea was and remains to co-opt the oppositions' positions. Bill Clinton won the Presidential elections by pulling the Democratic Party to the right, not that all that is of the left is correct. It isn't. The real truth is that there is real truth on both ends of that spectrum, but neither end nor any place on that spectrum is correct. This is why Karl Rove's method of attacking the opposition at its strength is also utter failure. Rove's method is just more twisting.
Jesus for instance fits no where on it in total. No one sliding a knob from one end of that spectrum to the other ever passes through Jesus's ideological position. Jesus's position takes the truth on the spectrum that is on both the left and right and discards all the rest of that spectrum. He is neither left nor right on that spectrum. This must and will become common knowledge and must be accepted. The people need to come to understand to do the same as Jesus.
Is it purely pragmatic? Yes, it is; however, pragmatism here is understood as being the opposite of the devious. It is not pragmatic to be Machiavellian. It is shortsighted. It always comes back to haunt. This is why the neoconservatives are so bad at leading. It is why Clinton's and Obama's neoconservatism (and they have tons of it) is so bad for the people. It will come back to haunt.
The Clintons didn't though lack to the extent of a Ronald Reagan, however, who had the solar-energy system Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof removed after he, Reagan, took over the office from Carter.
Using solar to heat the water at the White House was a good idea. It was the right thing to do. It was the right example to set. Those who stood to lose their false profits in the unrighteous mammon, however, hated it and moved to install Reagan who took vengeance on anything that hinted at the giving and sharing and caring (Creation Care) mentality of Jesus Christ.
Groups such as the Cornwall Alliance are nothing other than rabid capitalists wrapped up in Christian sheep's clothing. These people are the same ones who tout the Military Industrial Complex as being compatible with Christianity. They are utterly antichrist. They are the so-called conservative, Republican Christians (no such thing) who backed George W. Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and have done nothing to rectify the situation. They don't understand how properly to divide the word. There are things wrong on the left, but these self-styled Christians are bringing with them all that's wrong on the right to counter what's wrong on that left. They are not bringing what Jesus said to do. They are being myopic. They are not advocating the Golden Rule. They are promoting capitalism that is anathema to Jesus Christ, even as coercive socialism is also anathema.
They are the same ones who pooh-poohed the environmentalists' concerns about. Left to the philosophy of the foot-dragging Cornwall Alliance, the clean water and clean air and clean land liberal devices would never have taken hold. Pollution and inaction always costs more then cleaning up and flying straight. It costs both the rich and poor more.
Let's pretend that the conservative's lack of Creation Care at the time had nothing to do with the birth defects that resulted. Who paid the price of laissez-faire?
Let's pretend and not talk about the environmental movement that brought the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Pesticide Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. Let's pretend that the conservative, Republican self-styled Christians were for those measures. Let's pretend that their children and the children of the poor haven't benefited directly. Let's quote the neocon Heritage Foundation instead.
Imagine the Earth now after decades of inaction on the devastating environmental pollution of the later 1950's and early 1960's. These are the same who called for not sounding any alarms back then too.
When Carter attempted to set up methods where the chemical companies (including the huge petrochemical industry) would have to prove things safe before releasing them into the environment and would have to track chemical shipments and disposal throughout the system, the Reaganites, even before Reagan was elected, clamored hard not to have such "regulations." It has come back to haunt along with all the rest of the anarchism and libertinism of the libertarians.
God's kingdom, after all, is ordered and regulated by righteousness, not license to do whatever one wants. God's kingdom, after all, is not subject to the law of an Aleister Crowley, who called himself the Beast after the Beast identified in the Bible.
Crowley claimed to have channeled some demon telling him that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Well, what did he want? It wasn't good. It was selfish, greedy, and sexually depraved (harmful to others and himself). He stands in a long line of God-haters from before the literally written word up to the present. He didn't know God. He hated the limits that were only good for him and for everyone else.
The Libertarians, many who championed Reagan, rail against chemicals in vaccines, but they fail to make the connections between the oil and chemical and bioengineering industries. Many of them rail against imperialism and war, but they fail to make the connections between the huge, greedy capitalist corporations and the laissez-faire and neocon think tanks that pump out the garbage ideas that those minion libertarians mindlessly echo while imagining themselves as being of superior intellect. I raise these points because the libertarians are caught on the false spectrum.
They think liberal is what they call "classical" liberalism of say Adam Smith. They think that real conservatism is protecting that humanistic so-called "Enlightenment." They are unable to see what lines up with Christ versus everything else.
Capitalism whether crony or mixed with mercantilism or socialism or whether completely unregulated is never in line with Jesus. Nothing can be done to capitalism to bring it into line with Jesus's teachings. The only thing that can happen to it is its death forever. That though does not mean bringing in coercive socialism, which is also antichrist.
Many of the libertarians tout capitalism while professing Jesus. They rail against the death and destruction brought on by evil. They get beside themselves with emotional stress, but turn around and whip the masses into a violent, vengeful frenzy. It's completely antichrist. Jesus did not advocate vengeance. He rather said that those of that mentality would find that it would come back around to haunt them. They compromise with evil. God does not.
This is why Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and all the others to one degree or another have been terrible at steering. They have no idea about moral direction. The moral compass isn't front and center. The leaders do not insist upon using it. The people choose leaders who do not insist upon using it. This is the problem. Things come back to haunt because souls choose wrong. Things come back to haunt those who didn't make the choices. The Obama's are haunted by the shortsightedness of the Reagans and Clintons, et al. The future will be haunted by Barack Obama's shortsightedness, steering in the wrong direction.
Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, writes the following on July 1, 2009 in his article on The Huffington Post, "The Obama Organic Family Garden: Swimming in Sludge?":
...urge the EPA to place a permanent ban on "land application" of sewage sludge; our foods should never be grown in hazardous waste. And in the best spirit of NIMBY, the Obamas, after removing that contaminated soil from their lawn, should be the first family to push the EPA to halt the sludging of our public lands and farmlands.
Now why didn't the Cornwall Alliance "Christians" say that first? The answer to that is obvious. Vision is not their thing.
That quote comes at the end of the piece. The whole article is worth reading.
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)