SHEPHERD SMITH, FOX CHIEF ANCHOR, FORCING THE ISSUE ON FOX: FOX NEWS OPPOSITE OF ITS SLOGAN: ...BALANCED

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.


Tue at 10:39pm on Facebook

Tom Usher
Shepherd Smith is really forcing the issue out into the open right there on Fox News of Fox being the opposite of its motto or slogan of "Fair and Balanced." I don't watch Fox, but I have caught clips of him being un-Fox before. Will he be pushed out? Does he have an offer from another network to move over? There sure is more "attitude" in news than when I used to watch TV.

Shep Smith Apologizes For "Lack Of Balance" In Fox News Report
Source: www.youtube.com
FOX's Shep Smith Apologizes for Fox News 'Lack of Balance' In New Jersey Governor's Race Story - 10/27/09Tue at 10:39pm · Comment · Like · Share

Chris Wright
Tom. Fox news beats CNN, MsNbc, and any other network combined in the ratings and some. They aint going anywhere. Shep Smith is great. The ones you should be scolding is MSNBC. With idiots like Olbermann. That entire network is a joke. No wonder its in last place.

And Fox is the only network that actually challenges this administration while the rest just kiss the Obama behind.
Tue at 10:54pm · Delete

Chris Wright
Plus we need to get this straight. There is a difference between Commentary and news. Some cant seem to get that. They see Sean Hannity(who I like), Beck (not so much) and say oh my goodnes biased! Those are commentators. Shep Smith, Greta, Bret Baer and the early and afternoon programming is pretty fair.

As I said scold MSNBC, with people like Olbermann who toughts himself as news and he is nothing more than a commentator.
Tue at 10:59pm · Delete

Tom Usher
My young friend, who's scolding Smith? Calm down, and re-read what I wrote. In addition, ratings are irrelevant. I know about the corporations behind all the major networks. I don't support any of them. Fox is a Rupert Murdoch creation. He's a Zionist warmonger who calls himself a Christian. There is no such thing as a pro-war Christian. Regardless, Smith made a point, and in the mundane field of journalism, it was valid.

Also, if there were only one "liberal" network up against the one more "conservative" network that is Fox, the ratings would look much different. As I said though, it's not relevant to what I posted.

In addition, news channels shouldn't call themselves that when, as you have pointed out, there is so much "entertainment" commentary. "Fox News and Commentary" would be an improvement.

Lastly, if you think I haven't pointed out the CIA's use of CNN, etc., that's because you haven't availed yourself of the many thousands of posts on my blog going back years.

You still haven't figured me out, Chris, even though I haven't been hiding who I am.

Peace, kid
Tue at 11:36pm · Delete

Chris Wright
Why are you calling me a kid? I am 23 years old and far from chlidhood.

There is a liberal network up against fox. It's called MSNBC as I said. CNN comes a close second. Nobody watches that.

I named two shows from that channel that is pure commentary and the name should be changed? That's 2 hours out of a 24 hour network. I think not.

Goodness.
Yesterday at 11:18am · Delete

Tom Usher
Chris, you're being hostile. You called me "silly" in our last go-around and gave me some testy feedback, which I took while giving you feedback that I figured you didn't mean it ("silly") to be offensive, but "kid" coming from an "old man" is now going to rub you the wrong way?

I've seen that you haven't been feeling well, so I'll still endeavor to handle your mood.

I'm my father's child still and always will be. "Kid" can be used as a put down but also as a term of endearment. Receive it as your heart tells you it was/is intended.

By the way, if you want me to rip into Fox.... Fox News, aside from just the 2 hours, is absolutely loaded with intentional slant. They issue talking-point memos from on high (corporate, ideological slant from Rupert Murdoch's top hirelings/guns - not hard-news results). Shep Smith knows that, and it might not have been sitting well with him for a long time now.

Most people are not getting their news from Fox, Chris. It's a small percentage of the whole population.

I thought you were Christian? How can you back what is so utterly antichrist (Fox News) in word and deed, letter and spirit?

Nevertheless, bless you, Chris,

Tom
Yesterday at 2:50pm · Delete

Chris Wright
You said you don't own a TV yet you know what the TV channel does. I've seen it literally and it is not any of what you said. They have some really good journalists on there such as Major Garrett. I watch a whole lot of networks. I like to see what te differing viewpoint are. I don't just shut them out.

What in the world does me being who I am have to do with watching a TV program? I watch movies, tv shows, new programs, news links, news anything from a variety of show. Quite honestly, my openness to do so has benefited me in meeting new people. If I didn't do this, they'll all just reject Christianity flat out.

Have a good day Tom.
Yesterday at 7:55pm · Delete

Tom Usher
Chris, Fox publishes in print too. Also, many, many more people are posting videos from Fox. I'm running into it more and more simply on account of the sources I access referencing Fox right along with others. The difference between TV and the Internet/Web is certainly quite blurred now.

Yes, you sit in front of the TV a great deal. I spend the vast majority of my time reading from all over the world seeing what people who don't have any of the US network's views have to say. You should try it.

It will take you several more decades in front of the screen to get to where I was when I turned it off in 2004 and started reading more again looking for the real answer as to why everything was going, and still is going, to hell in a hand basket. I must tell you, since I've done both, reading more than watching TV is vastly superior. Sucking down endless hours of what the major networks spew is actually an exercise in being hypnotized and conditioned to self-centeredness.

"...it is not any of what [I] said"? Chris, I know the politics and economics that Rupert Murdoch has been pushing since before he ever bought into the U.S. market. Fox was a huge booster (the biggest) for going to war. It was dead wrong, as were the other major networks and all the mainstream media. That's the way it is.

Look, I see you dancing around the blatant antichrist-aspects of Fox, etc. If that's the way you want to proceed, that's your choice; but don't expect me to tell you it's a good and right choice. It isn't.

Chris, you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder right now toward me, so perhaps you should take a break.

By the way, it never harms one to say, "I'm sorry." I suspect you're conditioned to avoid that even when you know you're being grouchy toward someone without cause. I apologized to you for taking you seriously when you called me "silly." After a few more comments back from you now, it seems that you actually were being offensive, as if you're going to school me including with an insulting tone. You have a long way to go, Chris.

Who was it who said that when he was 18, his father was stupid but by the time he reached 21, he was amazed how much his father had learned in 3 years. Have you gotten to that point yet, even though you're 23 now? It doesn't seem it.

Anyway, this reminds me of where our conversation started with the first comment you ever left about universal health-care. I'm disappointed, frankly; and I won't be continuing with you in this vein.

Now, whatever things are bothering you, don't take them out on anyone else. Have a conversation with God. Commune with your heart. If you don't do that, you're going to run into deeper trouble.
Yesterday at 9:53pm · Delete

Chris Wright
Tom, I can whip out sites you go to that probably are "anti christ" too since apparently everything I watch is now anti christ. You add youtube videos well how about you never going to youtube again because they have stripteases listed on that website as well as "anti christ" news adds.

My brain is not "sucked" because I watch TV. I exceled in college TV or no TV. This is what I was talking about earlier. This is a great way to push people away from your Christian Commons project by labeling anything that Tom Usher doesn't do as "anti christ". Peoples first reaction is to walk in the other direction.

I remember that prior convo. I remember I gave you some different links with different statistics and you automatically discredited them instead of having a civil conversation and it ended in you calling me names such as ignorant, dumb and all that stuff.

Nothing is bothering me. I am actually a pretty care free spirited person. Ask anybody who knows me in person. But despite that, I still like Tom Usher and what he does :O)
8 hours ago · Delete

Tom Usher
Chris, I don't want to argue for argument's sake. I'll try to keep it brief where you are concerned – not easy.

You did not agree that Fox is antichrist. Of course, YouTube is antichrist. Now, I've said it. Do you agree, or not? Spit it out.

It has some messages on it that are efforts at the opposite of antichrist. If I couldn't use the medium to try to put forth what Jesus was talking about (which is far from standard fare if not outright banned), I wouldn't bother with it or Facebook or any of it. Read my conversation with Euro Yank on this very question he posed to me: http://www.facebook.com/walltowall.php?id=100000259332583&banter_id=557363740&ref=nf You may have to friend him to do that. I assume so.

So, you don't become antichrist by going into the center of the worldly world, else Jesus would have been antichrist for having done exactly that. However, Jesus stood there and pronounced woe upon them for all the hypocritical, evil things they were doing.

He was popular with some of that generation but hated now nearly across-the-board, especially in the U.S. and at Fox, for what he did then. If you disagree, then why aren't the newborns being born here and now into the Christian Commons, concerning which Commons there is nothing contrary to the direction in which Jesus asked souls to head. Am I speaking past you here? If Jesus came and said the exact same things, he would not be hailed as he was hailed then. Oh, they might get excited about the miracles. Many would be looking for technology hiding somewhere though. Wicked is that generation that needs signs.

Excelling in college is not the mark of seeing or hearing. The scribes and Pharisees were the highly educated. Chris, you are missing so many points, but rather than asking, seeking, and knocking, you think you are going to improve me by getting me to agree with you, who hasn't stood up for the basic tenets of Jesus. In all the back and forth we've had, you've done your damnedest to rationalize why you can't bring yourself to announce that you believe Jesus was/is a non-Marxist communist, for total peace always, and foursquare opposed to sexual harm that includes the choice of homosexuality. Declare yourself.

Your syllogism doesn't hold up, Chris. That's because you're using as premises things I am not holding up. I watched the Fox News clip. It has not been a matter of whether or not one watches. It has been a matter of what one concludes and then does about it. You watch. Then you tell me how "okay" their content is, their message is, what they are pushing is. I watch and say how terrible it is what they are encouraging and promoting to you and to everyone else.

If you can't bring yourself to admit that you've completely missed that basic, then I would prefer that you not attempt to interact with me.

If your brain were already configured to receive, you'd not be complaining.

You want me to lower the standard for the sake of popularity while I've been telling you that the standards have been too low – Fox's standard is way too low. I've done popularity, Chris. I'm not going to sink down into war-mongering or remaining silent while others twist minds to the evil that is war. If you want to remain on the fence or just maybe lukewarm, that's your choice. Don't expect to see me there. I don't and won't stand next to you there. If you don't like this and want to tell how my stand makes others stand off, then I suggest you consider why in the Bible there were times when there was no one willing to stand in the gap for the land.

Chris, "Few there be that find it." It's not popular, even though the highest heaven is full of angels without number typically comprehensible to the human brain.

"I remember that prior convo. I remember I gave you some different links with different statistics and you automatically discredited them instead of having a civil conversation and it ended in you calling me names such as ignorant, dumb and all that stuff." Chris, you started that conversation by telling me not to be "silly." I had never interacted with you before that. That was your attitude after knocking on the door and upon my opening it to you, yet here you are rebuking me. You have it backwards.

You like unfruitful arguing? I don't.

"Nothing is bothering me. I am actually a pretty care free spirited person. Ask anybody who knows me in person." Chris, most people have more than one side.

"But despite that, I still like Tom Usher and what he does :O)"

You like me and what I'm doing, but you don't like what I'm doing?
about an hour ago · Delete

Chris Wright
*Heavy sigh* Anything and everything can be considered "anti christ" including Fox (does that make you hapy that I said that?) Can't figure out the over reaching insistence on one network that you have only seen through random video clips.

That link did not work for me.

Jesus was around practically everybody. People were like "Jesus why are you in those sinners houses". Eating with tax collectors for shame. Yet you are telling me I am suppose to avoid "worldy" things at all costs?

I've noticed that people involved in Chrisitanity tend to be the first ones to cast the "You are not a Christian" stone. You've been implying it quite a bit. Why is that exactly? I have never even once said that about you yet you seem over arching in doing that to anybody who does not agree with you fully. I'm telling you even Christians dont bode well witht hat attitude.

I'm not rebuking anything, just trying to have a dialogue.

And finally I like you as a person and that you are strong on what you stand on. I like "some" of the things you do, I do frequently read your blogs. The one thing I do not like is constantly putting people down when they are not 100% lock step. I can cast stones until I am blue in the face but I choose not to, tends to destroy people more than build them up.

I think thats a pretty positive note to end this particular discussion. Tomorrow is Friday. Have a Great weekend :O)
about an hour ago · Delete

Tom Usher
I am not going to keep trying to answer all your comments, ostensible points because you are obviously not taking time to digest or reflect. I did not say "avoid "worldy" [sic] things at all costs?" How can I say that Jesus went into the center of the world, yet you tell me I'm saying avoid worldly things at all costs? I'm not enjoying this conversation with you. It's becoming tedious.

"Can't figure out the over reaching insistence on one network" It's not overreaching. If you can't figure it out after all this, that's your problem. Go hangout with the war-mongers. Tell them what they are doing is just fine with you so you'll remain connected with them on their level.

Is that clear and plain the way Jesus was clear and plain? Are you insulted? Figure out why if you are, and don't blame me.

How are you going to follow Jesus into heaven if you refuse to walk the narrow way and be lined up 100% (rhetorical).
31 minutes ago · Delete

Chris Wright
Short and sweet and Yes I am reading and digesting every world.

Putting me down, shunning me, scolding me and lifting yourself above me. The one thing I said everybody hates. I'm going to really leave it at that

Goodnight.
28 minutes ago · Delete

Tom Usher
You're wrong and want me to say otherwise. You never took clear stands concerning the specific things I asked. You don't want to. You're afraid to stand up about them. If you don't like the TV show, you turn the channel. If you don't like what you're hearing from me, don't read what I'm writing.

Also, not everyone hates being rebuked. When the Word rebuked me, I was beyond words because I realized how unworthy I'd been. I'm far from alone in that. Ask around.

Chris, is Jesus higher than you? I make you mad because you know in your heart that you're fudging where you shouldn't be: communism, total pacifism, sexual harmlessness!
10 minutes ago

Here's a bit more back-and-forth with Chris on a different thread to put the above into greater perspective. I had raised some issues about having two different streams where Facebook decides which post goes in which stream. The subject brought up the new "Fan" pages that are really one-way streets. It is introducing celebrity for the sake of advertising dollars to follow, obviously. It has introduced classism:

Chris Wright
Tom you are silly. It's just facebook. Nothing about 'class" :P
October 25 at 9:14pm • Delete

Tom Usher
— not that I have anything against celebrity, per se. I don't. I celebrate people. Celebrity though, in itself, is no reason to deem someone or group as being worthier or even worthy at all.

"...who posted the content..." – is that just an unfortunate choice of words? Whose posting is more valuable or worthy or important to whom? Of course, each of us gives more weight to different subject areas, etc., but sometimes and often (more often than not in my eyes), the algorithms of the powers that be (and Facebook is a power) actually serve up what is least helpful for getting at the root causes of problems and offering up the very best solution(s). That's what interests me first and foremost. So, I don't want the heavy, forced status quo filters of popularity because what's most popular is often not focused, even in the least, on making the world a better and best place but often it's exact opposite.

Chris, "silly" is a pejorative. Etymologically, I'll take it since it means "blessed." Do you not believe there is classism developing before your very eyes on Facebook? Open your eyes my friend. What do you think "fan pages" do in terms of level interaction? I "fan" people even though I'm not necessarily a "fan." I "friend" people even though some (many?) of those hold me to be the enemy.

"Acquaintance" is a great and dying term unless we are wise enough to revive it. "Favorite" and "Fan" are often nowhere nearly as appropriate as "Bookmark" and like terms. Consider the mindset and objectives of those who are conditioning the world through language.
...[I'm leaving a young lady out of it here]
All of that said, there are things about Facebook that I admire, so far (and may God preserve them in this stance). They haven't knuckled under where the war-criminal Zionists are concerned. Let me be clear here. I am far from an anti-Jew. Jesus was/is a real Jew. He's my brother.

Peace to both of you,

Tom
Mon at 9:16am • Delete

Tom Usher
I believe I read on the FriendFeed "Fan" page that Facebook "owns" FriendFeed, which is Twitter-like. I actually prefer it to Twitter but use both (automatically interacting together and with Facebook). The CIA and FBI, etc., love it all, of course. I want them to know.

The right hand censors me while the left hand continues building the evil dossier they started on me when I became a peace-loving teen in high school and "marched" (hardly) against the Vietnam War.

It's interesting how this thread is now in the "News Feed."

Blessings of Christ,

Tom
Mon at 9:38am • Delete

Chris Wright
*Sigh Tom* You blew my simple sentence out of porportion. I have been on Facebook back when it first started as nothing more than a college only social network. That's right. Originally this place was not open to everybody. Then they allowed high schoolers eventually, then got fun and opened it up to everybody. Then when Twitter popped up, Facebook twiterized the site. And this new one they have now, I heard they are now trying to compete against Google so that may be one phase. Een though I tend to have al these changes, I might as well no say much, they don't listen anyway.

Fan pages are useful. They keep me updated. Like you Tom can subscribe to some news organizations or newspapers or somebody who constantly will keep you updated with what is going on. A very good change on that one.
Mon at 11:26am • Delete

Tom Usher
I'm sorry Chris. I'm so serious. I'm not kidding. I don't look first for levity. I know that's not the prevailing style, but I've always had a very serious side even though I've been known to crackup the room. I've been even more serious ever since 9/11; but when Bush declared that he was going to invade Iraq, it sent me into the most serious part of my life. Anyway, I know you didn't mean any offense.

I was not aware that Facebook was ever for college students only, although I'm not surprised now that you've enlightened me about it. It fits. It explains much.

The Twitterized aspect is probably something that is more apparent to you since I don't know what it was like before that. Were there no "streams"?

You wrote, "Fan pages are useful. They keep me updated. Like you Tom can subscribe to some news organizations or newspapers or somebody who constantly will keep you updated with what is going on. A very good change on that one."

Well, I certainly understand what Fan pages are about. However, there is no niche left. Facebook is a mirror of what's out there that they allow to be sucked in or pushed in or what have you. It reminds me of the AOL days when AOL was a world unto itself. Many AOL users never went beyond the walls.

I think you spend a great deal more time on Facebook than do I. They are making it possible to do that while now getting the outside news. It's also a bit more than a micro-blogging platform, right? I still blog full-blown, but the censors (Google especially) cut my traffic down by about 75%. Facebook keeps many more people from surfing the wider Web now, doesn't it?

You know, speaking of college only, I remember the Internet when we had to use Job Control Language and 1200 baud rate modems to communicate college to college. Picture that.
Mon at 7:13pm • Delete

Tom Usher
Well, Job Control Language (JCL) was a way for us to communicate from one mainframe computer to another. I would ask the University of Michigan to crunch some survey data or something similar. After waiting what would be an eternity now, the results would slowly be returned showing me cross-tabulation information. It was bleeding edge back then of course. There were no mice or icons or images for that matter. Everything was what we called command-line driven. I actually preferred keystrokes to using a mouse. Even now, I use many more keystroke commands than the average user. It's vastly faster, for one thing.

If you had security clearance, you could also access the military, which started the Internet.
Mon at 8:06pm • Delete

Chris Wright
Yep a simple history is something along these lines.

1) it was called "myfacebook" and lookd radically different. Only for college students to connect with others after they leave high school. I'm sure you know how that goes. Tom would not have been allowed to sign up, nor would Gloria at the time. Had to be in college only.

2) Only thing you could do is write on a wall, there were no applications, no fan pages, no games, no news feed, no twitter even existed then, thats basicaly its early stages.

3) Then it wanted to be more myspacy. And allow anybody who is over a certain age to come in. Then came along a front page with more of what te "news feed" (as it looks now) looked like. It was not "live" or updated'. it was what was popular and the popular stayed on longer. I liked that.

4) Then everybody just loved Twitter to death. Facebook says nope, then "twittered" the entire front page, evrything became live. When you post, boom its there. Same as Twitter except you have a "wall" and profile and such here. Including fan pages, that all came to the main screen. News links. WSJ, Huffington post, I dont know what you like Tom, you tell me :P

5) Boom what we have now. "Live feed" and "news feed". I hate it but they seem to do it regardless. They have defeated Myspace, twitter defeated. I do believe as I said Google is next. I guess as a strong search database.

Thats the cliffnotes version of facebook :O)
Mon at 9:01pm • Delete

Tom Usher
You know, I had a vague recollection about reading long ago how Facebook started as you mentioned. It's come back to me more now.

It is the "hot" Internet space right now. As for defeating Google, well, Google is still growing in the business space. Facebook would have to take on business applications. Google has yet to defeat Microsoft. So, we have a way to go before this phase plays out. Google isn't going to sit on its hands. It still has very deep pockets.

Also, the global political economy will have a great deal to say about who ends up a winner in the mundane. What do the bankers want, and will people rise up? The people will rise up. There will be wars and rumors of wars. Prophecy is not a joke. It's a real spirit.

Concerning the immediate Facebook issue though, this multiple streaming going down the screen even when you're not looking is not digestible. The more friends one has, the less digestible it becomes. It's spreading thinner and thinner the wider it's spread.

Where's the attention span? Where's the time for reflection? The message is diluted. Entertainment input results in not doing what needs to be done. All work and no play, but all play and no work.... We get starving people when there's more than enough food. Just joining Causes on Facebook doesn't hoe a row. I can't get anyone interested. It's not because I'm wrong with the Christian Commons though. What's the problem, in your mind?
Mon at 9:53pm • Delete

Chris Wright
I forgot you asked me this question. Responding to your last paragraph.

You have to be able to connect with different people. Not everybody is Tom Usher minded. Not everybody is mega serious and digests things as you do. You just have to get on different peoples level. If you start "demonizing" and "insulting" anything they may stand on just becaues it doesnt "fit you" then there initial thing to do is pick up and run.

I added a lot of friends especially last year because of politics. I have Conservatives, moderates, independants, liberals, some socialists and some they don't give a flip about politics. But overall I can connect with a majority of them. Via politics, via movies, via tv, via theology, via something as simple as food.

I'm very right brained and you seem to be more left brained than I am. Different personalities. But people either "like" or "hate" certain personalities. Can't please everybody. I know I'm not able to.
Yesterday at 8:02pm • Delete

Tom Usher
Well, we have more than one conversation going at a time. They are converging on one topic.

You gave me the answer here that is the answer I would have given at your age. It's not the right answer. The concept of raising the standard isn't sinking in with you.

You don't seem to understand that everyone has fallen into the demonic. Peter was Satan when Jesus called him that, yet look where people hold Peter. If Peter, who has been held way up had fallen to being termed Satan, by definition, by Jesus, then how low is the common denominator of this current generation. There's no question mark because it's rhetorical.

The truth of the matter is that most people are frivolous while the world burns and they are adding fuel. It isn't that I'm too serious too much of the time. It's that people in general aren't taking the situation seriously enough. They aren't facing the truth that Satan has been the god of this world, that the bankers have stolen the rightful inheritance of all and need to be brought down not in violence and not with vengeance but by truth and by peace and love entering into their hearts. They are the hard-hearted, not I.

Look Chris, this world is a filter, a sieve. There is separation. The goats and lambs both are scattered.

"I added a lot of friends especially last year because of politics. I have Conservatives, moderates, independants, liberals, some socialists and some they don't give a flip about politics. But overall I can connect with a majority of them. Via politics, via movies, via tv, via theology, via something as simple as food."

Yes, Chris, I could be a master of being popular. That's so easy. It has been a chore not to be popular. With your becoming popular, tell me what you tell them and how many are lining up and for what – lining up to do what? There is none you've encouraged to do the whole thing Jesus talked about and is still talking about.

"I'm very right brained and you seem to be more left brained than I am."

Well, I'm ambidextrous. I write with my left and bat and mouse and do other things with my right. I've shown in art shows and also aced statistics. That's not it though.

"Can't please everybody. I know I'm not able to." Then why are you trying to get me to worry about it? I'm interested in God! If I wanted to be rich in mammon and popular, I'd be interested in Satan in the wrong way.
about an hour ago • Delete

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.