Sean Hannity, the FOX News network talking head, said January 31, 2006, that the John Birch Society is "liberal."

Is Hannity correct? Is Sean Hannity liberal? Who's liberal? Who's conservative? Who's conserving what? Is anyone conserving liberalism?

This is what the Real Liberal Christian Church is all about. We know that Isaiah was absolutely correct and that Jesus agreed with him on this. Real liberals bring forth real bounty where there is not harm.

Both Sean Hannity and the John Birch Society (libertarians in the current distorted usage) are speaking from opposite ends of the same erroneous spectrum.

Hannity is a neocon, which is a false conservative. The John Birch Society is comprised of Enlightenment Era false liberals. The Society seeks to conserve (restore) that supposed liberalism, hence they call themselves conservatives. They hold that anyone who is not that kind of conservative, for conserving that kind of liberalism is neither a real liberal or real conservative.1 Hannity's vision of the foundation of America is much more bought off by the bankers, the new monarchs. He's paid to promote a wing of the spectrum held out to the masses as diversity when in fact, as the libertarians and others rightly point out, other voices are censored by the bankers to keep the people in the dark as to the real diversity.

In other words, real Christianity is censored from the mainstream. The message of Jesus is not heard on the mainstream. It will be though. The Holy Spirit will come through whether or not the bankers like it.

The real liberal is for the freewill awareness that the real nature law is that property is the commons that everyone must share and respect to the utmost.

Free markets, free enterprise, laissez faire, will never work where the people are not unified by the central proposition that all is the commons and that the commons must be respected to not only be sustainable but to bring forth in real abundance that is without harm ultimately being, therefore, heaven or the real biblical garden.

We are talking here about love. We are talking here about the golden rule that the so-called classical liberals and the so-called neocons do not follow as the guiding light.


1 Alan Scholl. "Is the John Birch Society 'Liberal'?" John Birch Society. February 1, 2007. . (last accessed: Sunday, February 04, 2007). Return to text body.


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.