The following may not mean much to non-Entrecard users or even to non-power users at Entrecard. I've placed it here though as a public service. Entrecard needs to deal with this and handle it so I may give the all-clear alarm.

The following will be self-explanatory to EC users. I submitted it from my EC dashboard to EC Support:

Hi It's OK to be WEIRD!,

The following is a message that I'm copying you on that I sent to Scott McQueen of the "Just A Thought...":

Hi Scott,

The Entrecard system says that right now the RLCC ad is supposed to be running on your blog site. However, I visited and refreshed a number of times and the only ad that came up was for "It's OK to be WEIRD!"

Entrecard responded to my trouble ticket about this sort of thing happening to the RLCC ads over and over by saying that it's a bug but that the RLCC ad will run, just not on time.

Your site gave me the highest click-through rate per EC spent of all the ads I ever placed. If I get zero click-throughs from your blog, I don't believe Entrecard has stated things correctly (that the ad will run or will have run but just not on schedule).

Will you check on your end to see if Entrecard is telling you that the RLCC or "It's OK to be WEIRD!" is supposed to be running right now (04/26/2009 a little after 9 PM Pacific Time) and let me know please?

Thanks, Scott.

God Bless,

Tom Usher

P.S. I may be dropping Entrecard altogether if they can't get it together better than they have. (Is that their plan?)

xc: It's OK to be WEIRD!

OK to be WEIRD!: Will you please let me know what your Entrecard ad schedule shows you concerning any of this? Thank you so much for your help in this matter.


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.
    • I guess you didn't hear anything back from Entrecard yet? It's like a ghost town there now, the mods don't care, everyone is leaving and the forums are locked :-( Graham seems to have disappeared, is he on holiday?

      • Hello John, http://entrecard.com/details/100344

        I would have left my Entrecard calling card at your blog but I'd already reached the 300 maximum for the day. You have a soothing blog. I'm nostalgic for the green of England. I think I would have loved parts of it a couple of generations before 1066. I'm no fan of William "the Bastard," nothing against children born out of wedlock but the negative connotation intended by the word suits that William's actions. From my reading of history, he, more than anyone else, ruined the commons.

        Take a look at the Christian Commons Project, will you? I'm close to the Diggers but intend to buy the land and to not take "no" for an answer from the system.

        I'm not one who subscribes to the British Identity Movement, per se, although I don't disbelieve that the Celtic Christians were proselytized by Joseph of Arimathea starting in AD 63.

        Joseph had been a member of the Sanhedrin and a wealthy tin trader who, it is alleged, had traveled back and forth to the British Isles to trade long before the crucifixion of Christ. He, along with Nicodemus (also a member of the Sanhedrin), took Jesus's body down from the cross. It was Joseph's tomb where they placed Jesus's dead body. Joseph reputedly took with him on his AD 63 journey to Britain many sainted people who had known Jesus firsthand.

        I also quite like the hymn "Jerusalem," famous for, among other reasons, its connection with when Clement Attlee became PM – a high point in British politics (perhaps the highest) in my view – much higher than with Winston Churchill (beloved of the neoconservatives over here), which Churchill I consider to have been insufferably racist and violent (even enjoying terrorism).

        Well, I digress but happily so.

        As for Entrecard, Graham is stunned. He can't understand why all the people are so utterly uncooperative with his vision that he believes is only good for them. He's young, and does not know how to not be bullied while not bullying.

        What should he do? He needs to make up his mind.

        Look, all capitalists are in truth asses. Everyone knows it in the depth of his or her soul. So, if you are a capitalist, why be in a popularity contest to appease people who are costing you your vision?

        Graham is paying in bandwidth and equipment, etc., to allow a huge group to continue on without contributing to the capitalist profits necessary to bring them that very network. So, if Graham were wise as a snake, he would not ask anyone anything but rather simply decree, as all top capitalist decision makers do, that in one week's time, all Entrecard widgets will be carrying paid ads half the time and then not look back. He should just send out an email to all users to that effect – no debate, no feedback, no long explanation, just capitalist dog-eat-dog survival.

        What would happen is that a bunch of people would quit, but costs would drop while the percentage of net profits would shoot up relatively speaking. So be it – Many headaches gong. Then, build from there.

        Then, if he wants to do the right thing, he would earmark all net profits (over and above a reasonably comfortable life and growing the company – plowing back) to the cause of bringing forth what will end the greedy system.

        If he takes my advice short of helping afterwards, he'll be doomed worse than if he just folds his tents now. That's a fact. It's all or nothing in the end. God is watching and so is Satan!

        Is this antichrist advice? It is not antichrist at all. Graham has to start somewhere. In fact, this advice ought to put many in mind of the teachings of Christ. Translate the system of mammon into its opposite.

        Decisions, decisions


        Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove,

        Tom Usher

        Come again, John.

    • Tom

      entrecard doesn't have paid tech support from what I've heard; so waiting is a part of the game, it appears.

      • Hi RE,

        That's my understanding too at least concerning the entry-level staff. However, Entrecard hasn't grown so much that suddenly they are unable to respond in a timely manner, unless many of the volunteers have fled or are not putting in the same amount of time. Entrecard was one of the most responsive sites around not that long ago. I assumed at the time that they wouldn't be able to keep up the pace or would slow down responding to cranks who refuse ever to be contented with anyone's efforts, but now they are not responding concerning highly valid problems/bugs and for weeks on end. That's really bad. Even intelligent music-on-hold has the occasional voice-over (every few minutes is enough for me). Entrecard could at the very least say by email "working...working...." It's called automation. (Sarcasm can be effective if not overused).

        I hope you read my comment reply of last night. I care.

        Peace (non-violence always; really reality),


    • Kicking us out of the forums might be the last straw for me. I stated a petition to open them.

      • Hi Jen,

        Yes, I saw that. He knows.

        He is just barely out of his teens though, you know.

        Of course, Alexander is a prime example of someone young who can cause many, huge problems.

        We shouldn't exactly equate Graham with such a huge ego based upon what's happen with Entrecard. It's not enough. Some of Entrecard indicates a desire for integrity and to hold forth with a spirit of generosity. There are signs of redeeming qualities.

        We are not to judge, condemn, and punish. We are only to warn. Keep the possibility alive for souls to turn rather than burn in the Hell of their own making.

        The general direction that started Entrecard is nevertheless of genuine concern. That's why I discuss the mixed-economy issue.