There is going to be a huge sorting out attempt on the Internet being forced in by Rupert Murdoch. He has been pushing hard to line up all the major remaining newspapers to all start charging to read their "news" online. He wants to roll it out next year.

The economy will still be tough. Many people can barely pay for any access to the Internet, let alone news-site subscription or other fees. I see it driving many Internet junkies back to "alternative" news where the whole thing began. I see it as further dividing the haves from the have-nots.

Some people will pay for news access and then paraphrase it all on their ad-driven and donation sites.

Will the AP and Murdoch have copyright police computer scan the whole Internet for their material and then send out notices to people to take it down or pay up? They would run into people who would fight back under "fair use," but the fear would still spread. There would be a chilling effect. That's what the AP and now Murdoch would be counting on. I stopped using the AP's content because of their public complaints. Of course, they stopped receiving the link-backs too. I didn't stop out of fear but disgust at their rejection of "fair use" for free political and religious speech.

This is all going to change the Internet the way the switch from ad-driven broadcast TV to cable TV changed TV and when Ted Turner bought up all the old movies. In many ways, the changes were not improvements.

Still, the mundane (anti-divine) system has to be able to afford to pay journalists. I just don't see Rupert Murdoch digging via honest investigative journalism but actually working the other direction.

The changes will force Facebook and Twitter's hands. They'll have to turn a profit or go under or sellout. All those "free" pages won't be profitable just from ads, not when they'll be competing with Murdoch who will both charge and sell advertising space. The Facebook "free" pages will have to start charging a fee to the page authors and maybe to the accessors.

The Wild West isn't anymore. The Internet isn't going to remain wide open. There's no way that the consolidators will stop pushing and pushing until they "own" the space. They haven't given up on the idea of tiered access as in fast lanes and slow lanes over and above our ISP tiered-structure either.

They say eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, but actually conflation (coming together via the Holy Spirit of truth) and separation (to Heaven) taken together are the only real means to become free of evil, which freedom is the only real freedom.


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.