UPDATE: March 17, 2009
UPDATE: March 9, 2009 B
UPDATE: March 9, 2009 A
UPDATE: March 8, 2009
UPDATE: March 7, 2009

Original post:

Hello Everyone,
I haven't posted a new article here since February 25, 2009. I've been working on back-office matters you might say. I've vastly reduced the size and loading time of the site for instance. Although, I still realize that on an economy-server plan, it still takes a long time to load especially with Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. I'm working on getting the site to load faster without dumbing it down too much. Please let me know in a comment if you notice an appreciable speed-up. Thank you.

I've done some other things regarding spam that I won't go into so as not to educate the spammers. Suffice it to say that I'm exploiting the Bad Behavior plugin now to the max.

In addition to the website improvements, I've also done a great deal of financial-accounting and other reporting work concerning both federal and state governments. It's necessary that I take the ministry to the next level now that the website is fairly well established.

To those of you who use Entrecard, I reduced the feed load on the site. I still show the Top-10 Droppers fulltime though. I've also place ads — with each of my top-ten not as a reward but simply for networking (outreach). They are active users and will know this site when I request to advertise on theirs. I didn't put much thought into it.

On another issue, I'm still running into plenty of political censorship. Various sites and networking communities claim they aren't censoring, but it's purely a semantical stretch on their part. They think that if they block language that offends the sensibilities of some that that isn't censorship. Well, it is.

Understand here that I'm not opposed to censorship, per se. I won't go into a long philosophical or theological treatise on censorship, but I will say that censoring the truth that something is harmful is evil. Censoring the truth concerning the better and best way to be is also evil. I find that many sites deliberately censor truth and righteousness. They want the debate suppressed or to distort it beyond all reason and proper rules for the sake of continuing in iniquity, which includes wars, greed, sexual harm, and all the other manifestations of selfishness (apostasy). They are liars whether they recognize it or not. They are purveyors of falsehood — that which is harmful to the soul in the longest run.

Right now, this site is locked from updating by Technorati. The feed validates just fine. It has all along during the current lock-up. The rss feed is not the issue. During this current 30-day blockage, I've submitted three support tickets about it. Also, manual pinging hasn't done a thing.

I've been through this with Technorati countless times before. On several occasions, this last one included, the indexing actually went backwards. They removed already-indexed posts.

The simplest explanation is that someone or some group who/that stands against what the Real Liberal Christian Church is about

  • Total pacifism
  • The giving-and-sharing, moneyless economy
  • Complete sexual harmlessness — zero harm: no wittingly causing or spreading of any diseases whatsoever

submitted a complaint to Technorati (or maybe it was a computer filter). That triggered a pause (automatic?) in indexing and updating the posts. The site was placed in a list of sites "flagged for review." When I noticed that the site wasn't updating and asked for a manual update, someone looked at the latest posts and removed them and did not turn indexing and updating back on but left the Real Liberal Christian Church locked out while not communicating with me about it at all. Technorati has never explained their reviews of this site. I think I've only dealt with a live human once or twice and that was concerning a bug in the rss feed that I finally solved.

My position is that a site should never be locked before a human looks at it and that in any case, a clear and reasonably detailed explanation should be given to the blog owner(s) with an appeal method provided before a site is locked or banned. The exception would be flagrant violation and never marginal, questionable, or merely debatable material. Would this always remain subjective? The threshold of flagrancy varies from soul to soul.

Some people believe XXX, pornographic material should be allowed everywhere and anytime. Some people believe Christianity should be banned. Some people think women should be in chadri burqas (totally covered, even their eyes).

From a Christian standpoint, the issue ends up being one of coercion. Jesus doesn't teach us to force others. It's taken me decades finally to learn that — I mean really sink in. I knew it before but rationalized it away at best.

Self-censorship is right. We don't have to provide a platform for evil though either.

You will see from the comment rules for this site and my history of dealing with commentators that genuine debate is accepted. The point where I stop approving comments is when the other party has repeatedly refused to answer direct points. Jesus did that too (he wouldn't give answers to others who refused to be honest in their communications). It's the proper standard.

When I cut someone off from further commentary it constitutes censorship. There's nothing wrong with it at that point. It would be a lie to call it something else such as "editing" (a euphemism when used to deny censorship). It is editing, but it's also censoring.

Anyway, it certainly isn't unreasonable to conclude that people abuse the complaint process on many of the major blog-networking sites.

Some people are submitting complaints out of spite rather than genuine concern. How do I know this? How many people are there on the Internet with access to the complaint button? How many people deliberately set fires as arsonists?

In addition, society has a strong tendency to fall to promoting a false sense of civility while sterilizing mass murder, such as looking the other way while the U.S. uses remote-control weapons with mundane impunity and without any due process of law. Here's society saying that boys in elementary schools may use the girl's restroom if those boys claim to identify as girls while the U.S. Air Force is murdering innocent boys and girls in other lands. Consequently, the sensibilities of people who do huge harm to others is protected against any words of truth that would reduce their self-esteem or egos or false-sense of justification for their reprehensibility (selfishness and harmfulness; always the same thing).

The same society that doesn't care to concern itself with the harm of certain sexual behavior and rather approves it is the same society that murders so easily. There's a direct correlation. The hypocrisy is the problem. Remove it, and the problems disappear.

Now, I really didn't set out to write about Technorati and this site. I'm not venting about Technorati or the other sites and networks. It's their site. If they want to act as gatekeepers for unjustified complainers, that's their choice. Those blind to the truth follow each other into the ditch.

I was actually motivated to write about EuroYank's situation. EuroYank is a blogger who has been running into political censorship and has taken great offense.

For years, EuroYank has been on the Internet exposing imperial-government corruption. He certainly isn't alone in that. There are people though who hate what he's done and work to thwart him. He promotes his blogs too well. If he were selling the American Dream (greed and attending violence), he'd not be censored.

Recently, I started paying more attention to his work. It isn't that I had never found it interesting or valuable enough. I was simply fully engaged in developing the RLCC. Well, in furthering the networking (outreach) of the RLCC, I happened to be working MyBlogLog and came upon EuroYank again. He was one of the "Hottest" communities. So much of his work jibes with mine that I figured I'd try networking with people who had shown an interest in EuroYank's site. Of course, I was under no illusions that there are plenty of people ready to engage in pointing out problems or at least like to read the complaints but who then nevertheless run from the solutions (hence run from the RLCC and Christian Commons Project.)

EuroYank had a huge following on MyBlogLog. If memory serves, it was over 600 users and growing daily. I made some initial contact with about half of them when MyBlogLog locked EuroYank's community. Of course, it was political (but what isn't in the final analysis?). EuroYank didn't give up though. He just created a new site and started up again. He greatly reduced the number of community broadcasts too. Does MyBlogLog have a limit on broadcast messages? I don't know. I've done only one community message the whole time I've been on it. It's a judgment call. If you message too many people especially outside your list of friends, you'll be labeled a spammer and summarily banned.

EuroYank joined Entrecard and put MyBlogLog, BlogCatalog, and Entrecard widgets on his site. I thought those were good moves, although I wondered how long it would be before he'd be censored. It didn't take long. He's run into trouble again but this time with Entrecard.

You'll have to go read his post on it, "To All That Use Entrecard." He saying he's going to sue all Entrecard users; because Entrecard has removed his account and those users, according to EuroYank, are aiding and abetting Entrecard in unconstitutional censorship.

Many Entrecard users have no idea about blogs being banned, especially over issues of free political speech. The other thing is that Entrecard users are mostly anonymous. Many never give their real names or locations and use only dynamic IP's that are not logged at their ISP's on a permanent basis. Suing them all just isn't practicable. Many are scattered all over the planet too. In addition, before suing people, it's expected by the courts that the plaintiff would have made some express demands. What has EuroYank asked Entrecard to do? What's been the response? Entrecard's stated policy is not to listen to other users defending a banned blog or blogger.

What are Entrecard users to do, quit using it on principle? Well, Jesus could have stopped preaching in the synagogues on that level of principle. He had a higher level with which he was concerned though.

I must say that it is difficult to know just how far in or out of the system to be and on which levels. In thinking about such things, I always think about how Jesus was, and remains, both in and out. He's always outside the worldly system in spirit even when he's right in the center of it all speaking and doing his deeds. Of what was he and is he a member? He taught in the synagogues, but did that make him an accomplice in his own crucifixion? I don't see it that way. He was in the synagogues networking with the people in a way that was the downfall of the system that is still growing even as it is still dying.

About EuroYank though specifically, I don't see anything on his site that merited a complaint let alone removing his account. I must qualify by saying that I have not read all his posts. I have viewed even fewer of the linked videos (due to bandwidth issues and time constraints). However, if what I have read is pretty much his standard fare, I would conclude that Entrecard's line needs to be moved so that the subject matter on EuroYank's blog would not be grounds for removal.

One thing I'd like to emphasize in a very mundane way for the broadest audience is that these public/private networks would really help themselves by being specific and open about their reviews and affording blog owners progressive-disciplinary processes with clear appeal avenues. They should allow for public feedback too. It's up to them of course. What they won't do is please all the people all the time. Frankly, in the interest of being "safe," they are offending higher callings.

I think about Raed Jarrer being told by JetBlue airlines to remove or cover his t-shirt that read in English and Arabic, "We will not be silent." The airline is a corporation. It isn't the government, per se, but they don't have a right to violate a private citizen's civil rights of free political speech such as was on Raed's t-shirt. Lunch counters don't have the right to refuse to serve Black people. Those are the rules that are supposed to be enforced via coercive means under the U.S. Constitution. It's not Christian though. The idea of preventing Raed and Blacks from being discriminated against is good. The coercive part though isn't. Is coercion a necessary evil? Jesus thinks it's an evil that needs to be overcome on Earth and in Heaven. I agree. Do you agree too? That's not rhetorical. Leave a comment that you agree unless you're afraid, in which case, you still aren't safe or saved.

So, go read his post and the comments (I added mine), and chime in.

I'm sorry about EuroYank's situation vis-a-vis the U.S.A. I'm sorry he can't speak out in Europe either without facing indefensible laws.

The people get what they allow and prohibit.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20 KJVR)

If this doesn't tell you that there aren't two real Christians acting in unison on the planet, you aren't reading it. You can't see.

Update 1 (March 7, 2009):

By the way, I've seen quite a bit of commentary now on the Internet concerning this issue of EuroYank and Entrecard. I want to point out to everyone that there is one huge difference between Entrecard and most other sites and that concerns the monetary value of the Entrecard Credits that are used in bartering and as a medium of exchange (money) and are even sold for legal tender. There are huge tax ramifications involved.

The IRS and many individual States expect every U.S. taxpayer to declare bartering income and the dollar value so "proper" taxes may be paid. The IRS could come in to Entrecard and change the whole affair, at least for a while.

All of the RLCC's credits belong to the Church, which is non-profit and tax-exempt. For-profit bloggers are not in the same situation. Even non-business bloggers though are gaining dollar-denominated EC and exchanging those credits for advertising space and using it to buy and sell ad space and other goods and services on Entrecard's site.

Also, when one is banned from Entrecard with a huge EC (Entrecard Credit) "bank" account that has been earned (worked for – many hundreds/thousands of hours for some clickers/droppers), it is questionable as to whether or not Entrecard owns those credits. Banned bloggers could file a class action suit against Entrecard. People do such things under the guidance of go-getter lawyers.

Also, what kind of documentation does Entrecard keep concerning banning blogs? There are people right now where their blogs are their sole means of any support. A blogger denied equal access to a commercial site such as Entrecard could make a case for monetary losses and pain and suffering and the like.

I'm not saying these things here to cause trouble. I'm just pointing out that lawyers would argue these issues pretrial and then before the court. These things are not decided until the highest court bangs the final gavel.

I hate all of this sort of stuff. It all stems from selfishness and the system. Jesus hates it too. We all need to rise above all the me, mine, more crap. It's why I use Entrecard — to speak directly with people of, by, and for the system, just as Jesus spoke to the tax collectors and prostitutes, etc.

We need the Commons, not more dog-eat-dog.

Update 2 (March 8, 2009):

Posted by: Jawsome
On: 03-07-2009 05:26 PM
I was the moderator that deleted his account. It was deleted because I had received 4 TOS violation reports of people who had been personally offended by the content displayed on the blog. Whether image or text be the case, it is still offending entrecard users. We value our users.
Posted by: Jawsome
On: 03-07-2009 05:30 PM
There is no ban attached to said users account. He blog listing was merely deleted. Which is not permanent. He may reapply at any time and his blog will be sent through the approval process. ...

Okay, here's what the people who really want to know, want to know. What image(s) or text "personally offended" whomever reported EuroYank's blog. That information should be made public. I want to go look at the alleged, and thus far needlessly undisclosed, evidence to evaluate it in light of the TOS (rules). Also, repeatedly in the forum thread, people made clear that they want to know exactly where the line is.

Now, this is coming down to a "fight" over what constitutes "hate speech" among other things. You will notice in the thread that "hate" is specifically mentioned. What aren't we to hate? Are we not to hate, hate? It's an impossible concept. I hate war — now what? Do I hate military killers? It's a contextual question. On what level is the question being asked? I hate what they do. Jesus says we are branches (figurative in a sense and literal in another) bringing forth fruit. It is either good or rotten, somewhat or completely and depending on how much one is given to understand just how perfect, perfect is. Jesus says you shall know people by their fruits that is results. So, you know a killer or murderer by the dead body(s) of the innocent. Are there dead innocent children killed by military troops? Of course there are. Do I love those troops? Again, it's contextual. I love them on the level Jesus loves them — loves the iniquitous for their potential to turn from evil that is confusion. Look, that's the whole point of EuroYank. He repented of what he was involved in, in the Vietnam War. He did the right thing turning from that and repenting of it. EuroYank hates fascism. Is that bad? It's not bad in my Good Book.

I'm not being esoteric here or cryptic. I'm in earnest. This is the conversation that the whole world needs to, and will, have. The language needs to be, and will be, set straight.

This whole "hate speech" thing is very poorly explained anywhere, including by the U.S. federal government and in Europe, where it actually started growing so-called legs.

One of the commentators in the forum thread brought up the threshold of inciting violence rather than simply using the alleged and theoretically possibly cunning sensibilities of some interest groups. Several different groups were raised: Homosexuals, Zionists, Jews, and the religious (brought up in the context of those who preach against "sin," such as yours truly).

The thread has begun to take on the semblance of some intelligent discussion. The moderator(s) are beginning to rise to the occasion, somewhat.

Here is what must happen, which still won't please everyone. They must define the terms being used. They'll have to do it in legalese while being at the same time as plain-language as possible. That's the best mundane solution. I won't even begin to discuss the divine level right now.

Update 3 (March 9, 2009):

I am adding here my original comment over on EuroYank's post.

Tom Usher
Says: 7:37 AM

Hi EuroYank,

Is that the sum total of the communication you received from Entrecard? I can't tell which aspect(s) of their TOS (including "Blog Quality Standards") they believe you've violated. It's not much to go on.

How do you get around the fact that you accepted Entrecard's TOS when you applied for an account?

Also, you'll have to identify yourself. You can't sue as "EuroYank."

I didn't join Entrecard to gain for self apart from God. I joined solely to increase the number and range of eyes on the words on the Real Liberal Christian Church website for the sake of the Christian Commons Project – to do the right thing – repent and atone. You joined to get eyeballs and ears too and not for money.

I see that you still have a link to the Nazi war videos. That blog is not something that should be illegal. Add a strong, unequivocal disclaimer at the top. You aren't a Nazi or a fascist. You're not an apologist for Nazi war crimes.... You're not a "holocaust denier."

If the problem is with YouTube and other links to possibly copyrighted material, then that's a huge problem Internet-wide. YouTube doesn't make people say where the clips originate and what the copyright is on them. They do remove copyrighted clips, but people pop them back on again. Average users have no way of knowing what's "protected" versus what isn't.

As for "discrimination" and "hate speech," those terms are as nailing Jell-O to the wall. Who knows what the complaint against you might be concerning such concepts?

If you do sue, and I'm not recommending it (it isn't Christian to be aggressively defensive), through legal discovery, you'd be able to find out who made the complaint(s) and exactly what was alleged.

I certainly can relate to your situation. I was censored on OpEdNews for being "offensive" to homosexuals even though I was quoting Jesus Christ. The RLCC site has been "flagged for review" so many times on Technorati that I've lost count. It is "flagged" right now. It has been for about 30 days running. Plenty of sites and blogs have refused to approve my comment submissions.

We all have our limits. The only thing I care about is people wittingly and willfully censoring righteousness. That offends me. I won't kill them, punish them, or lose any sleep over it; but they won't get into my Heaven if I'm given a say over it. Oh, if they turn, repent, and atone that will be different. If they show mercy and forgiveness, that will be different. As for the ones who don't give a damn about those things even after having been told in no uncertain terms, I won't stand up for them.

Do what the Holy Spirit moves you to do, EuroYank. Make sure it's the Holy Spirit though for sure. Don't fall for temptation. Deliver us from evil.

God Bless the Universe,

Tom Usher

Update 4 (March 9, 2009):

EuroYank is now saying that he was never planning to file a lawsuit. I hold my peace (withhold, reserve judgment). He's wrestling with issues of consistency. That's where Jacob gets his name "Israel." God is nothing if not consistent.

We all are to wrestle thusly. It's why Jacob had a change of heart, repented, and made amends with his half and older brother who received him graciously, with no bitterness. Bless both of their exemplary hearts. It's why Jesus came here, to show more of that light, infinitely to magnify it. He is blessed above all for being the greatest blessing of all.

We may join but not exceed the Master who is God. Wholeheartedly, Jesus bows, kneels, and completely prostrates himself to God totally joining God as one thereby. God is this spirit.

What concerns me most is the welfare of the lost sheep and broadest public. Taking care for them will help EuroYank the most anyway.

The heat of righteousness was being turned up on many consciences to discover and openly to reveal exactly what on EuroYank's site was "offending." Now that EuroYank has bowed out (with whatever degree of face-saving), there is less mundane compulsion for exposing the mindset(s) of the complainer(s) (perhaps four EC members).

Which of the complaints, if any, was to cover evil (harm) for evil's sake versus for good cause (objective/subjective)? Specifics help truth-seeking people to better discern. Specifics can be used by the enemies of truth as well.

To what degree is each of the complainers uneducated or undereducated (unaware) concerning the radical evil deliberately exposed by EuroYank on his blogs?

Perhaps Entrecard has made relatively huge strides during its internal deliberations in conjunction with consulting with outside sources and as a result of its moderator meetings. Perhaps somewhere such news has already been released. My motive is not to scoop mundane news stories. I want to get at the root cause of evil and root it out in total once and for all. That is done in patience and with perseverance.

In the process, we mustn't curse anyone. That's counterproductive. Cursing is the dark side. I am not from that side. I am not for that side. That side hates me. It seeks my fall. It seeks to kill me. It wants to devour my soul forever. The same applies to you. It applies to each and all. Evil (its very essence) wants to devour each and all. It wants to fracture. It wants to bring pain and suffering. It wants to prevent healing. It wants to prevent the life of Jesus and God. It wants death. It is death. It is eternal death.

The object isn't to cause people to fall but rather to enlighten and lift. We cannot force others to clean their own hearts, for such attempted force is also a fatally flawed tool belonging solely to that same dark side. We don't damn souls. We don't judge and condemn them. We do though discern evil results. We do discern the evil causes.

We are instruments, witting and not. Our natural and adopted spirits struggling in our hearts, minds, and souls are reflected outwardly. It all does impact for better or worse, for light or darkness. We can defile ourselves and offer up rotten fruit encouraging others also to partake, or we can cleanse our temples within (just as Jesus did) and offer up only good fruit to all others no matter how defiled they may be (wanting of truth and surely in need).

This is a small neighborhood of existence, but it has eternal, infinite ramifications.

How may Entrecard become a perfect tool rather then a blunt object for dividing the true from the false? In very truth, it cannot while remaining unconverted that is not fully reborn in the spirit of Christ. This is why we go repenting into the center of this worldly world.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke 8:17 KJVR)

Just as with Entrecard (a microcosm), the economic system of the United States and of the Earth right now cannot bring forth true bounty while remaining unconverted that is not fully reborn in the spirit of Christ.

This worldly world is ruled by the spirit of darkness. See the light, and the light and nothing but the light will come to rule.

Update 5 (March 17, 2009):

I left the following post "Invitation Response" over on Freedom of Speech for Bloggers yesterday:

Hi Marc and All,

I see that Entrecard removed the forum thread concerning EuroYank. I went there with the intention of visiting the blogs of some of the better-comment authors. Google had some of it in the Google cache, so the removal was recent. I decided not to spend the time going through cached pages – a matter of priorities and peacekeeping.

As you've pointed out, EuroYank removed his blogs. He does have a new blog though with an anti-NWO theme. He apparently changed his mind or didn't mean it about not blogging anymore. God can read his mind. I'll leave it at that.

As my posts and comments explain, I'm not opposed to censorship, per se. I practice it as consistently as I am given to comprehend. It's always a judgment call.

I have been censored. The rules of the places where I've been censored hold out that those who own/run those places have that right. I submitted content on that basis. Do they have that right? Whose perspective ultimately controls? They have been given the appearance of freewill choice for the time being. Regardless, there are consequences for everything. That's the nature of righteousness.

This all goes to the heart of worldviews. I stand for perfecting. I believe/know Jesus has this worked out.

I have been censored by capitalists, warmongers, homosexuals, false Christians, false Zionists, and others and all because I published/submitted clear refutations of their various positions. They do not want those un-refuted points taking root in the public consciousness. They mask that behind deliberately vague and inconsistent/hypocritical rules. Various people can rationalize banning anything that ostensibly offends the greedy, the violent, and the sexually depraved (defined in real Christianity as selfish and harmful). They can censor anything under the guise of "hate speech," as if they don't hate me, what I'm saying, and the one moving me to say it.

I censor/have censored those who don't directly address my points. I warn them about the standard. Is that unfair? I have also instigated a first, last, and real name-policy concerning comments on the RLCC site.

That's it.


Real Liberal Christian Church
The Christian Commons Project on


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.
    • "Babylon fights against the Truth whether in the Temple or the Marketplace..lo they are the beast."

      remember that passage.

      EuroYank does.

      I had a long chat with him the other nite before he left entrecard and he clarified for me his reasons for wrapping up his blog - and they are clearly posted on his website as his final post.

      I also reposted his last post link as well as a link to part of one of his posts, and I tell you I never saw anything his site that would merit removal from entrecard.

      Bless You for Speaking Up for the Warrior - EuroYank.

      • Hi RE,

        From which version is that verse? I'm not familiar with the wording.

        I wonder how this will be received by the staff at Entrecard. What I want to see is the exact infraction. What is it on his site that crossed the line in the reviewer's eyes?

        Well, somehow good will come out of this.

        It's not right that people can't speak what they truly believe and that isn't advocating evil. To me, EuroYank comes across as someone who has worked hard to glean truth from across the spectrum while rejecting what he's so far has identified as bad for humanity in general. I don't see any racism or ethnic bigotry or advocating violence or coercion coming out of him against anyone.

        This banning stuff is a real trying and tempting time for people when they experience it. It's hard to be Christlike and just take it — even offering up the other cheek as a testimony against them.

        I'll try to comprehend your site more. It will be easier to do now that you've left your comment here. It puts things into clearer perspective for me.

        Thanks, and God bless.



        P.S. I do hope you've used your real name in accordance with the comment rules here. It's not always easy for me to tell.

    • Thomas James

      In my opinion merely expressing any opinion that is contrary to the prevailing consensus of a given community is enough to get you banned. Once I joined a video camera community and I found out very quickly that I bought the wrong brand of video camera. The moderators complained to the administrator and demanded that a certain moderator who was championing the same "renegade" brand of camcorder be banned but the administrator refused because he would lose too much advertising revenue from the "renegade" company. So when my name came up the administrator decided to ban me in order to appease the mob and knowing that he would not suffer any loss in advertising revenue because i was a nobody.

      I remember that one community banned me after I started a thread about Ghandi. At first the community was very nice too me and acknowledged that Ghandism could indeed work in India if you are dealing with a civillized people like the British but they flat out told me that Ghandism is totally ineffective when you are dealing with Adolph Hitler who can only understand brute force.

      • Hi Thomas,

        It is not possible to be free of evil and be wallowing in it at the same time. The standard is the most important thing there is. Think about how Jesus's standard is the highest there is while he is not the one who judges, condemns, or punishes. This is a paradox for many. Many cannot reconcile it. He says his father (spirit, figure), our God, has created the inescapable system where we end up on the receiving end of our own standard (ranging from emotions to deeds). Many people rail against God for this. Think about how senseless that is. God is so forgiving and merciful.

        Look at all the time that goes by while souls are given repeated opportunities to change to the higher and highest standard. Then realize that in God's system, Satan, who is the spirit of humanity's lesser standards and lowest standard, is the one who does the actual punishing. Now, how does anyone get to Heaven here and now and/or hereafter without knowing the difference between right and wrong and simply choosing right? What's so hard about this? Why do humans make this so difficult for each other? Why don't they all support each other in doing their best rather than rationalizing and complaining against God's system?

        Oh, I hear the atheists (some) going on and on about how Jesus doesn't have a monopoly on righteousness. What are they thinking? How do they define righteousness? They dumb it down.

        Anyone (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens...), show us even one atheist who is on the same moral high ground as Jesus Christ. How can anyone be as good as is Christ while not even believing in the Oneness that transcends this plane of existence let alone joining it?

        What atheist will love me enough to go to the cross for me? How can an atheist do it, when he or she doesn't know what going to the cross means? How can the atheist take away the sins of the world — all of them, as Jesus is still doing (if reader, you are given to comprehend)?

        How can the atheist brave Hell and be lifted out in righteousness if the atheist doesn't believe in such forces? The atheist gets hung up on semantical traps.

        We are here for a reason. They can't rightly appeal to pure reason without having any; nevertheless, they try to get away with doing just that. The atheist has no premises upon which to build a moral foundation. They are always left in the relative position where the sociopath is not refuted. They cannot refute the sociopaths. Jesus though can and does. Why are people duped into falling for atheism? It's so transparently illogical on both the mundane and divine levels.

        Oh, there's a metaphysical naturalism, but it isn't what the atheists claim it is. The real metaphysical naturalism is the conflation of the New Heaven and New Earth (spirit and flesh). The atheists just don't get it. The way the atheists twist the term metaphysical naturalism, it becomes an oxymoron — naturally.

        As for Gandhi, per se, he believed in Rama (Vishnu) but not Jesus as the fulfillment of such. He ultimately did not reject violence. He left room for the oppressed to resort to violence. These are unacceptable positions. Jesus did not even resort to passive resistance. He even paid the tribute to Caesar, not to honor Caesar or to facilitate Caesar's oppression over the people but in complete consistency with the truth that Caesar's world was another universe (Shiva's).

        Oh, Jesus knew about Hinduism. He didn't live in a vacuum. People weren't nearly as ignorant of the wider worldly world as people falsely imagine today that they were. In fact, without endless TV entertainment and other current, mind-numbing activities .... Well, I leave it to you to fill that in with your own understanding.


    • Hey Tom,

      I think you might want to look in the Eden Bible to get that. I am a believer in the truth regardless of it's source.

      the update to your original post is highlighted today in my continuance of the whole mess on BadGalsRadio.

      we hope this tax issue doesn't become a financial mess as well, but we feel compelled to as you have done; bring it to the minds of the people, who will be most effected.

      Thank You for Continuing the Good Fight and if I am removed you will already know why.

      My Prayers and Good Thought to You and Your Readers.


      • Hey RE,

        I'll check the Eden Bible. I use a number of different versions. I'm not a King James Only person at all. Even though I'm not a Calvinist, I actually like the Geneva version better than the KJV. The KJV was written by the monarchists, and it shows. The only monarchy I'm in favor of is the Kingdom of Heaven, where everyone owns everything and nothing. I love it!

        I actually saw your update on the whole Entrecard censorship issue. I'm sure they won't bump you for it. I'm favorably impressed by some of the commentators you quoted from the forum on Entrecard (heads up, watch out for the copyright police — vindictive). I'm intending on going to their sites on account of it. (I looked for your comment form, but didn't locate one. Are you using just the Javascript shoutbox?)

        We can't get at the truth if we aren't allowed to search for it. We can't share our findings if others oppress us. This is the same struggle since "the beginning" in the Biblical sense. An Internet friend and Christian brother (really), Scott McQueen, recently wrote a post about Psalm 119 (Just a Different Way of Speaking the Word) that reminded me how humanity is the oppressor.

        "Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts." (Psalms 119:134 KJVR)

        Scott's very much like EuroYank in that Scott too has a repenting heart. He hates what he did as his former or old self. I love people doing that — repenting. It's what the whole world needs to do. I certainly hate the old me, and I'm not perfected yet.

        Perhaps you've been to Scott's blog before when dropping Entrecards. He's a great guy. We need a couple billion more like him just for starters. Heaven is filled with Scott-types getting up, dusting themselves off, and singing the praises of God — the real One.

        As for the tax matter, it would impact upon Entrecard much more than Entrecard's users. The IRS wouldn't be as stupid as to target every Entrecard blogger in the U.S.

        Some climber though somewhere working the political angle will whisper in someone's ear and then a phone call or two will be made to some elected representative(s). The likeliest source will be someone with a "banking" interest/connection. They don't want the competition. Entrecard could become an dealing in EC rather than taxable dollars. It's such a small niche yet that it hasn't shown up on the radar screen. It will though. It will be the small-fry libertarian capitalists (who hate EuroYank) versus the bankers (or banksters, as many refer to them), who fund the big-fry ostensible (read phony) libertarian-capitalist think tanks. Ironic? No, tricky. This isn't lost on EuroYank. He knows who the plutocrats are.

        For someone who calls herself a "bad gal" you sure come across as no enemy of Christ. I know, bad is good, as in you're bad when the person is really good at something. It's for fun. I realize that. I'm not a snob. Social climbers are actually digging their own graves.

        I went to both public and private schools. I'm glad I did. Not everyone in the private schools was a snob, and there were some huge snobs in the public schools. Being streetwise is a real benefit though. The strictly preppy types just don't know what that's all about.

        Anyway, so what trouble did EuroYank have with the founder of Entrecard some years back? Can they...

        "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:24-25 KJVR)

        Thank You, Sister,


    • I came here via BadGal...

      I am a political blogger that has watched my fellow Nigerian political bloggers get arrested and detained without appropriate legal recourse. It is very disappointing to learn that ECard might join the likes of Nigeria's government and other in censoring free speech.

      I will admit that I was unaware of EuroYank's situation and will now take the time to learn more as independently as possible. But, what I have learned so far is just not good.

      Even though I am a lawyer, I have a tolerance for limited and appropriate censorship. But, as a lawyer, I understand the importance of free speech, no matter how annoying or even offensive (in certain cases) it can sometimes be. I hope that this is all some kind of mistake that will be remedied.

      • Hello Solomon,

        Of course, your "fellow Nigerian political bloggers get arrested and detained without appropriate legal recourse" because the powers that be don't want to hear them, don't want others to hear them, and those powers have the money from the unethical means they've used to gain control.

        Not all censorship is designed around that unethical motivation. That unethical motivation actually rides the coattails of ethical censorship. It hides behind it.

        Entrecard is far from the only social "networking" system with a line that has come to be controlled by those who want their unethical positions protected. That is the problem for truth.

        The only way to break that stranglehold is to break the cycle of selfishness. We must make giving and sharing work. That means we must not allow deviators such as violent Marxists to control the movement to giving and sharing. The argument must be moved from one between greedy capitalism and Marxism to between that capitalism (no matter how so-called "pure") and the vision of Jesus.

        Marx was a major diversionary tactic who worked to the advantage of the plutocrats: Bankers (evil usurers), capitalists, fascists, imperialists, colonialists, et al.

        One need only follow the oil money to know what's mainly wrong with Nigeria.

        Thanks for commenting.

        Bless Your House.


    • Tom,

      Thanks for this post... if you don't already know I am one of the moderators, i was on a short leave of absense when all this went down and I am still trying to get caught up on it, the moderators for EntreCard have a meeting set up for tonight and I fully intend to get to the bottom of this. As a person with a blog that can be very offensive to certain people I would not value being removed from the system just because a few people decided to bitch about it, If that was the policy of Entrecard I WAS NEVER AWARE OF IT. I will find out tonight what exactly is going on.

      I do know this...EuroYank has no grounds whatsoever for a lawsuit...because Entrecard is privately owned they can ban whomever they please, whenever they please, for whatever they please...just like you can refuse to serve someone in your own restaurant at any time that you this point it seems to me that EuroYank may be guilty of the same thing our common enemy is guilty of - restricting freedom of private individuals to do as they please with their property. I checked out his blog, i was not offended and actually agree with him more than not---I am a conspiracy nut just like you two...

      Either way, let's avoid jumping to conclusions for now, please. I want to know the truth about this and will do my best to find it.


      Matt Oxley

      • Well, Matt,

        Yes, I knew you are a moderator from what you've written on your blog (where I have often dropped Entrecards).

        Let me say that if EuroYank doesn't have grounds for a lawsuit at this point, it is not for the reason you cited. If he doesn't have grounds, it's because he hasn't exercised his full rights and responsibilities. I can't speak to his communications, requests, etc., concerning and with Entrecard. Perhaps officially and formally he's requested reinstatement. Perhaps he's requested to know exactly the offending material. Perhaps he's pointed out to Entrecard that Entrecard is offending as many as it thinks it is "valuing." EuroYank is no slouch, in case you haven't discerned that. He's vastly more intelligent than are those I've seen attacking him. Frankly, he's annoyed with stupidity. I know he has to rise above that. Some souls are just too wicked to enter Heaven, and no amount of EuroYank's blogging and their reading and viewing and listening, etc., is going to help them. On some level, I know EuroYank knows that. I'm just saying it here to help him resign himself to it. He wanted to help save the world. Well, he has helped. He should hear that, and I'm saying it for that reason.

        I read his back and forth with the 18-year-old Taiwanese-American (self-described). That young man misunderstood, as did many others who read that thread. EuroYank was being extremely sarcastic with him, testing him. It was obvious though that EuroYank made clear that race and ethnicity is not the issue — it's rather ideology and actions. I don't hold with EuroYank's "lack of" tact with the young man (who by the way incorrectly thinks EuroYank is 43 years old when he is in fact in his late 50's). I am not though going to claim that that lack of tact offended me. It didn't. It only concerned me for the very fact that so many people don't know how to get passed such things to the underlying debate that really matters. It's a judgment call. There are people who hate it that I've used the term "serpent" exactly as Jesus used it in discussing hypocrites, including present-day Pharisees, who are the Talmudic rabbinists. If that's hate-speech, then Jesus practiced hate-speech, which makes it okay. Follow?

        Now, as for the so-called private enterprise argument and a restaurant being able to decide whom that restaurant will serve, you are flat wrong. Public restaurants do not have the legal right to refuse service on account of status when that status is protected under the Constitution. The signs that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" were taken down. There is no public business in the U.S. that can legally discriminate on account of race, color, creed, sex, age (with some exceptions), and some are reaching for sexual orientation (attempting to put it on par or above freedom of religion). If I've missed any, forgive me.

        A restaurant open to the general public does not have the legal right to tell Black people to leave on account of their simply being Black people. I don't know who has been filling you full of a load of dung concerning Constitutional law, but clearly you've been severely misled.

        Let me also clear up another of your misconceptions. You and I don't have a common enemy guilty of restricting freedom of private individuals to do as they please with their property. Matt, take a look around here. I know you've been here before. I'm a communist, Matt. Christianity is communism but not Marxism. I'm libertarian only in that I oppose coercion. I am a total pacifist too. I don't believe in private property as defined by capitalists. Jesus didn't hold with it. We have possessions that belong to God. God is one with all souls who are one with God. God is not the god of the religion you have come to hate, which I too hate but from a different level of knowledge.

        Furthermore, I don't characterize myself as a "conspiracy nut." Although, I realize you don't mean it literally. There is nothing nutty (crazy or idiotic) about knowing that a plutocracy rules the worldly world. It is rather a requirement for sanity to know it. Sanity is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and the plutocrats are dead wrong (insanely self-centered and harmful).

        "...jumping to conclusions...." I know that is not the problem on this end. That's what happened at Entrecard, prima facie. Knee-jerk reactions rather than wanting truth is the problem.

        Anyway, Matt, I know you are struggling with many issues. You need to separate God from the religion in which you were raised. They aren't the same thing. Many of the issues you have are with the Old Testament, under-interpreted God or god (case depending upon context). When you went to questioning, you didn't focus on Jesus. Your objections aren't with Jesus that I've seen anyway.

        So, report back your findings about EuroYank's situation and Entrecard's position.

        We'll jump to the conclusion that you won't reveal what they want to remain "internal," which is their prerogative until the courts say otherwise or unless they are prepared to face contempt citations and time in jail on "principle."

        Frankly, they should be up front with EuroYank, tell him what they want changed to reinstate him, and do that if he complies. They should be ready, willing, and able to change if EuroYank refutes their position. EuroYank says that he's not going to blog anymore; so after 3 months of no new posts, Entrecard could take down his site from Entrecard anyway.

        Also, Entrecard really needs to figure out how to handle EC balances. EC obtained under a false application for membership is one thing, but just wiping out someone's EC when he or she has offended some overly sensitive or conniving types is not a good practice at all. EC should be transferable.

        As for the tax issues you didn't mention, Entrecard, get a tax lawyer and a second and third opinion before you dig an extremely deep and expensive hole.

        God Bless You, Matt,


    • Maria Sumulong

      Re: Entrecard

      In my opinion, it is wrong for EC to ban or remove a blog just because it received a few complaints. What happened to free speech? EC should also give a detailed explanation on why a blog was removed. They hardly give the owner any explanation. There was one blog that was deleted from EC just because there was one entry that was written in another language. It doesn't matter if 99% of the posts were in English, someone flagged the blog and voila, a moderator hit the delete button.

      • Hi Maria,

        Perhaps I shouldn't have laughed, but when you said, "voila, a moderator hit the delete button," I did laugh out loud. It's the illogical that's always funny. We laugh at illogic. It's hardwired for sanity.

        Some things though others find extremely funny don't even get a slight smile out of me but rather strong feelings of disapproval for the callousness that some enjoy so.

        I do feel for that blog owner with one (?) non-English post; although, the moderator was simply following clearly stated rules. I take it that your point is that the moderator should have first contacted the blog owner with a time-sensitive reminder about the rule and that if the offending post is still up after some time frame, then the blog would be removed. There should also be a statement that as soon as the "offending" post is removed, the blog will be reinstated.

        These are fairly common sense steps aren't they? They simply require putting oneself in the various shoes all the way around.

        Anyway, what about blogs that use translator plugins? I did myself up until just several days ago. I never even thought about Entrecard and that translator. Maybe they covered that issued. Translated pages are there in English afterall.

        The most important mundane thing right now is getting a clear, public answer concerning exactly what material on EuroYank's site was seen as grounds for removal.

        If Entrecard won't declare that, Entrecard is a coward. It doesn't have the courage of it's convictions. You see, when we know what it was, well ... think about what it will reveal.