Let's be fair.

I said that I was having a problem with Entrecard. The Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC) ads placed there were not running at all. For those who aren't familiar with Entrecard, the RLCC earns credits by, among other means, visiting other member's blogs, which visits can be both a delight and informative (WARNING! Also utter darkness as well — to be overcome). Those credits may be use to "purchase" ads on member sites.

Well, I entered a trouble ticket back on April 10th. Today (13 days later), I finally heard something back from Entrecard. Wow! Are they swamped or what (suspicious)? I will paraphrase as I'm not sure whether the TOS (terms of service agreement) forbids reposting support-ticket replies verbatim. I'm being subjected to more TOS-thinking lately.

In essence, the short reply apologizes for how long it took to reply. It informed me that there has been and remains a bug in the ad system which bug prevents ads from "changing over on time." It says the ads will run though.

Well, the reply is good, up to a point. I ran a huge batch of ads and received zero click throughs. A similar previous batch of ads resulted in about a doubling of visits. Therefore, I'm not convinced that Entrecard knows that the ads will still run only not necessarily on time. If they believe that the only problem has been with a delay in running, then they are not working to solve the same problem I reported. Doesn't that make sense since click-throughs would have still resulted from ads running at wrong times?

I suppose I can test the system one ad at a time; but if the ads might run just any old time, how in the world would I know when to go to the member's site to see if it shows up at all?

By the way, they closed the ticket, which doesn't make sense. Tickets should remain open until solved. I don't know whether or not I'm able to reopen the same closed ticket. I'd have to go see.

You know, I'm not a capitalist, but as capitalist enterprises go, Entrecard is not as stupid as many of its detractors allege. The giving-and-sharing-all political economy that is real Christianity, as outlined in the Christian Commons Project, is vastly more intelligent. Jesus is vastly more intelligent than are the capitalists. However, many people seem to think that when comparing one greedy enterprise to another, Entrecard comes up short as misguided capitalist entities go. It doesn't. It's just new and has been founded by someone who is young and green and can learn on the job and grow in it and out of it if he aims his heart in the right direction.

What do I really want though in the end — Now, even as the means to that end? I want everyone to turn to the Commons Way. We don't need money. We never did. It's a purely artificial trap devised by egotists who love to lord it over others who are purely altruistic and decent hearted rather than fractured up inside as a mixed bag of greed and giving for show to be seen of men and women rather then be truly righteous.


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.