Tom Usher wrote or added | "The Organic Consumers Association's 'Coming Clean Campaign' has been working to clean up the 'organic' personal care industry since 2004. Unlike organic foods, many personal care products are falsely labeled as 'organic'."
Unfortunately, foods labeled organic are not always truly organic; but that's another article. I'll just say here that "USDA certified" doesn't guarantee "organic" in the sense old environmentalists meant when they first used the term long before the first "organic" laws or standards were past. What I'm saying is that "USDA certified" doesn't mean purely organic throughout the entire supply chain. It should though.
It should mean pre-petrochemical. It should mean that if there's anything synthetic in the slightest, it's not to be certified organic. Avoiding it all now though has become all but impossible on account of the greedy polluters. We'd have to send the planet through teleportation with filters on it to screen out all the toxic crap produced since the beginning of the "chemical" industry or era. Now with nanotech and genetic engineering, the filters would have to be down to the smallest human messed-with substances and also be corrective or reversing since our very DNA is being further junked up. It sounds like divine intervention is in order.
This is the fault of voters for not electing representatives who will not be bought off by anti-organic, shifty, dishonest, uncaring, anti-environmental, anti-Christ (yes, anti-Christ), stinking, greedy corporations and others who will do everything and anything to get away with selling evil products and ingredients and fight against proper labeling so the rest of us cannot avoid their stinking evil without having to do extraordinary research, etc., even if that will work anymore.
Damn it. I mean that. I'm not swearing or cursing people. I'm cursing what they are doing. I don't want evil to work for them. If they want to make "gains" via evil, then I want their efforts to fail. There's nothing wrong with that. Of course, that means that if they hear it and refuse to stop the evil and since they are what they do, they'll be damned to a certain extent by their own actions, not mine for simply speaking truth.
Of course, we are locked into this evil system in oh so many ways. The greedy do everything they can to keep decent-hearted people under them. How does one live out from under them without being "underground" so to speak? One shouldn't have to live stealthily just to be able to live right. I hate it. I hate the system. I hate what the greedy ones have done to the world. They are all wicked and need to repent and atone.
To Hell with laissez-faire (let do capitalism) and it's caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). That's a stinking, lousy philosophy towards one's neighbors. Rip-off artists love it. As decent human beings, we are to look out for each other; hence, we are to be in favor of proper labeling. In fact, we aren't supposed to want bad ingredients in anything in the first place.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to sell things to each other where the buyer has decided to trust the seller. I'm talking about where the buyer doesn't know the source and doesn't want to just trust whatever is on the supermarket shelves just because the stupid government has a bunch of sellouts running it.
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)