GOOGLE'S HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: CENSOR REAL CHRISTIANITY

UPDATE Thursday, December 03, 2009: I had told Google Blog Search that if they stopped censoring me, I'd say so on this Blog. As of this "UPDATE," Google Blog Search is now showing 1,967 posts as indexed and linked. () That's up again from only 4 at one point. Therefore, I'm adding this update.

1,967 is not all of the posts, but it seems that perhaps they are slowly re-indexing the site. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked to see if they are avoiding "controversial" posts.


Google is going to great lengths to censor this information:

http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3330
http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3331
http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3332

They refused directly to include it in their search results. Google is only showing links to the posts. This is fascism at work.

Orwell was right when he wrote in his book Animal Farm that some people are more equal than others. It appears that homosexuals, even though homosexuality is a choice and harmful, are being treated as the Blacks during the civil rights movement who did not choose to be Black and could not (apart at the time from by God's ultimate power over everything) change from being Black (their DNA). Besides, being Black, per se, was never harmful in the sense that homosexuality is harmful ("Homosexuals: What they ignore") over and above being White or anything else. Yes, Blacks suffer as a group from some diseases above the rate for other races/ethnic groups. That's true for other groups as well. It's not the same thing as with homosexuality where the behavior is voluntary in the mundane sense.

Read this great article: "Deafening Silence from black leadership," by Meeke Addison. Breakdown of America. August 4th, 2009.

What's happened to this blog (www.realliberalchristianchurch.org) at the hands of Google over the last two days is deliberate suppression of freedom of legitimate religion and freedom of legitimate political speech. They claim they don't do it. That's completely untrue. They'll claim their filters caught something wrong. They did not. There is never anything wrong with the truth. They hate the truth. They hate it that homosexuality is a choice and that its harmful. They try to turn "choice" into "immutable." They try to turn "harmful" into "harmless and even "beneficial." It's sick. It's the disease of falsehood.

What has happened to this blog over the last two days is a clear pattern that cannot be explained otherwise. They censored the whole post. Then they even censored all the parts after I broke it into parts to see whether they did in fact censor it when it was one post.

Well, what goes around comes around. They'll reap what they sow. I'm sowing anti-coercion. I'm sowing total pacifism, giving and sharing all voluntarily with the likeminded and others, and sexual harmlessness. What will I reap?

The homosexuals are standing outside religious meetings screaming at people who are celebrating the conversion of former homosexuals to Christianity. Those homosexuals outside and their supporters are fearful that the truth will come out that people can change, as Jesus clearly teaches.

It's a choice. It's all thoughts/mind. Decide. If you feel bad for caving in, well you should. If you don't like feeling bad about caving in, then don't cave in. The more you don't cave in, the less you do it. Practice the behavior of not caving in. It will become your new habit. Engrain it. Burn it in. Reinforce those neural pathways. The old way will fade. As I wrote before, if you fall off the wagon, get back on. This is what the alcoholic does, or he or she kills himself or herself by alcohol toxicity that the body can't handle.

The homosexuals didn't like being in the closet, so to speak. Now they are trying to shove others into the closet. They are using evil, coercive means to do it. They are using misled "authorities" to threaten and to use violence against those the homosexuals don't want to be able to say that homosexuality is a choice and that it is harmful.

Donate


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 would respectfully disagree with you saying homosexuality is harmful and is a choice made by man. maybe not totally but please put it into right context. there's no way we can generalize it. a lot are trapped into this curse of homosexuality that without hearing the truth, they don't know what they're doing. and it being harmful? no, it's the devil that is harmful.

      • Hi Mikes,

        You'll have to take the time to explain how homosexuality is a curse, as you said (which is a blanket/generalized statement) and is also from the devil while not being harmful. Unless you can explain what you mean in a way that will make sense to me, I'm left to conclude that your position is muddled, disjointed. I'm completely prepared to be enlightened further (it happens every single day), but you'll have to elaborate and clearly explain your position. What you've said is that I'm missing something; however, you haven't helped me to see what that is — if you're right.

        I'm going to speak in Biblical terminology here, even though I could translate it all into the "modern" parlance. I'm going to do that because we need continuity in Christianity or we'll all be lost.

        In order to heal people, Jesus would treat different people differently depending upon the unclean spirit(s) that had taken up residence within, in the flesh and the soul to varying degrees. Those unclean spirits are of Satan. They are a curse. Jesus said that by God's power (always), people's faith, or as a sign, the unclean spirits were made to leave.

        So, how do you explain that it is not harmful or is not ultimately a choice (matter of faith in God's power to remove the disease)? I don't understand your position.

        Evil is within. It manifests outwardly. That manifestation presents evil temptation for others who can either reject it or take it in, making it part of themselves, thereby also manifesting and further presenting temptation. Is that not correct?

        If one is tempted, as was Jesus, and does not accept the "offer," then one doesn't have the wickedness within such that he or she then produces bad results that defile him or her and by which he or she is known (the tree is known by its fruit; the person is identified or marked by his results).

        Do you read Jesus another way? If so, how do you read him?

        Also, what am I doing here but trying to tell people the truth so that they will be motivated to cast out the selfish, devouring, destructive unclean spirits?

        I can't reconcile your statement, "and it [homosexuality] being harmful? no, it's the devil that is harmful."

        Isn't homosexuality the devil acting out? Isn't the flesh possessed? Isn't what is possessing it an unclean spirit of Satan? It is to me. I can't see how it isn't also to Jesus. I also though can't see where Jesus wouldn't say many homosexuals are ignorant. On a certain level, it's all ignorance. Satan is ignorant of how to be God afterall. I haven't said otherwise. I'm trying to enlighten.

        Your comment though seems, so far, to be an attempt to retain a fracturing of souls.

        Please explain.

        Peace and blessings,

        Tom

      • Also Mikes, while I know that the topic of your comment is narrow, what is your position on the fact that Google consciously suppressed the free exchange of theological concepts here? Do you not think that that is also a manifestation of the proverbial Satanic spirit?

        Do you believe that they were right to censor my posts?

        Do you believe that in doing so, they have worked on behalf of greater iniquity under the false guise of not offending?

        The one they don't want to offend is Satan, not God.

      • Also Mikes, while I know that the topic of your comment is narrow, what is your position on the fact that Google consciously suppressed the free exchange of theological concepts here? Do you not think that that is also a manifestation of the proverbial Satanic spirit?

        Do you believe that they were right to censor my posts?

        Do you believe that in doing so, they have worked on behalf of greater iniquity under the false guise of not offending?

        The one they don't want to offend is Satan, not God.