MY FACEBOOK REPLY TO EURO YANK 11/15/2009, ADDED AS A BLOG POST

Yes, I noticed you weren't around here or tweeting, etc., so I thought I'd check you out.

I've been nosing around "groups." Facebook is not as alive as I thought it would be. People seem shell shocked or to be entertainment zombies — just what the dark side ordered.

I was thinking you're pretty good at coming up with ominous, eye-catching NWO images. You might want to pop one on your group.

I found out that the group maximum is 300.

The friends is 5,000. I've known that one for some time now. I been mulling over the best spread.

I experience a drop every time I rev it up on anti-Zionism or whatever. I just did a wave on Fascist Homosexuals. I lost about 4 that way. Facebook won't fully render links to some YouTube videos that show homosexuals acting out beyond the pale even of the lax mundane laws.

My last blog post was against calls on Facebook for banning anti-homosexual groups, etc.: "DON'T BE A HOMOSEXUAL FASCIST OR SUPPORT HOMOSEXUAL FASCISTS."

I didn't put much into it. It's just a beginning since I believe these people lack self-restraint and won't know when to stop. I believe it's why they were slapped down before so hard that they ended up in the closets. Really, they are their own worst enemies, just like the Zionist Fascists. Frankly, there's more there than meets the eye. The Mossad is loaded with homosexuals. Zionist Israel is extremely decadent. It's starting to reach Biblical proportions again, and you know what that means.

I assume they draw the line at everything and anything that suggests that homosexuality is a choice and is harmful: ban it whether it's true or not. These people have no idea what civil libertarianism really is.

It was people like me who said to not coerce them, and now they are turning around against me saying that I have no right.... Then they'll wonder when it all backfires on them.

They're just going way too far. It started out with "tolerating" and then became condoning and now it's promoting homosexuality while oppressing those they ask to tolerate them. To Hell with that!

They come on my site telling me to leave them alone — talk about dumb. Wow, does it get any dumber than that?

It's amazing. I had a homosexual (?) stalking me on Facebook. He did 3 friend requests in a couple of days and then spammed my Facebook links page all the while he was submitting comment after comment on this blog after I'd told him he wasn't following the rules for debating. My rules are so easy, but they can't even manage them while they call everyone who disagrees with them dumb. You should see it.

One of them told me I can't write. Of course, I make mistakes (who doesn't, especially on the fly?). What's amazing is that he did that via a comment of a couple of paragraphs full of his own writing errors. He also did it while defending someone who called me a word smith — so much for a coordinated attack.

Oh well, onwards and upwards.

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.