UPDATE: Sunday, April 19, 2009:
After de-sticking my immediately previous Entrecard post, I was moved to go look around some more.

Okay, still no answers from Entrecard, but I found this:

Credits for blog posts
You get 25 credits for each blog post you add to your site, with a maximum of one payment every three days.

So, that changes the calculation, but it doesn't explain everything. What do I have to do, build a spreadsheet and go back through all the transactions and all the posts to compare? It would seem so. Is it worth it? Well, if I don't, will Entrecard take care enough for everyone's sake?

It makes no sense to me that they didn't just point me to the "one payment every three days" rule and then go back through their payments against the posts. Isn't that what you would have done? It's what I would have done were I in their shoes. At least they could have said give us some time to do that. I would have been delighted.

Oh, well, as Dr. Bruce Baker put it to me, he doesn't expect Christian ethics out of Entrecard. Well, I want people who will turn upon hearing actually to hear. It has to be said. They at least have to have the words go before their eyes. It's their opportunity. It also removes the excuses for not turning. It cuts both ways.

While over there on Entrecard, I followed a link to Now, why would Entrecard still be linking to ("Top 5 Entrecard Tips and Tricks") from Entrecard's Help Page when has the following as its current post: Turnip of Power was banned from Entrecard some time ago. Oh well, no accounting.... I'm sure the link will disappear now that I've written this.

How long is Entrecard going to last at this rate? This is not the level on which I wish to be functioning. What this all highlights though is that the greedy spirit twists up.

Entrecard is being criticized for wanting Social Security numbers for EC cash outs. Do they need those SS#'s this soon? They don't have to do 1099's until $600/yr, right? That would be 600,000 EC within 1 calendar year at the current rate. Who's going to get there any time soon?

I'm the one who brought it (taxes) up originally, I know. However, I raised it in the general spirit of helpfulness and openness (transparency and timeliness). What I'm seeing though from Entrecard is way too much of the proprietary spirit, even for libertarians.

As an aside: There are people who don't want to submit their SS# on an unsecured server, but just adding an s after http gets one onto the Entrecard secure server.

Well, I will wait for the movement of the Holy Spirit. We shall see. Anyway, the EC belongs to the RLCC, not to me. Entrecard doesn't need my SS#. They need to make arrangements for paying other then sole proprietors, right? Are you learning, Matt Oxley? For those who don't know, Matt Oxley is someone who claims to have been a Christian clergyman who converted to atheism and now openly promotes homosexuality as being harmless.

Matt is a moderator for Entrecard, paid I assume. Perhaps Matt will come to see the error of his ways in following after the greedy spirit.

He's avoided commenting at this site ever since he's seen that I expected him to return with the information he promised regarding the banning of EuroYank from Entrecard over who knows what content on EuroYank's blog. I'm still waiting, Matt. Where's the info? What was the offending material? I want to go see it for myself to discern who was offended, or in other words, which demon spirit openly rules behind the scenes at Entrecard. Who are you protecting, Matt — little, duped minions of the global plutocrats/bankers who crucified your Lord?

Also, I bumped into this. I never would have known otherwise. Why can't they email this stuff out? They don't email on purpose. Why? They want more people spending more time on Entrecard. That will keep them small. Oh well. The following will determine who gets cashed out:

community-support algorithm:
1. How many cards you drop / how frequently
2. % of paid ads you approve
3. % of Entrecard ads you approve
4. Listings you create / completed sales in the market
5. How many credits you transfer to others (indicative of contests, tips, and generosity)
6. % of credits you spend on Entrecard ads

Concerning #4, non-profits require special consideration. Christians also must take care concerning the issue of recompense. I don't promote it. Recompense is what mammon is all about. I seek to translate mammon into its antithesis: The Christian Commons.

Also, how can the RLCC spend EC on ads when Entrecard doesn't run the RLCC's ads? Is that fair?

Satan isn't fair. Who's Satan? Anyone who's acting unfairly is Satan.


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.