1. Address the root cause of Haiti's problems: violent greed of Empire builders. #

  2. FBI 2000 Phone Records via Faking Terrorism #

  3. The FBI is spinning that last story. #

  4. Does Matt Taibbi have Tourette's syndrome? I agree with many of his observations about David Brooks, but why does Taibbi always fxxx...? #

  5. Don't read this if you don't want to be subjected to the f-word. #

  6. Neocon-Zionist-fascists decrease "surplus population" of Muslims #

  7. Neocon-Zionist fascists decrease "surplus population" of Muslims: Scrooges all. #

  8. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-19 #

  9. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-19 #

  10. selfish spin #

  11. When linking to an Andrew Breitbart site, I'd try to remember to qualify it. #

  12. His stuff is more dangerous than the stuff from the World Socialist Web Site for instance. #

  13. The WSWS has already qualified that they are anti-Stalinist, etc., whereas, Breitbart sites are witting tools of racists. #

  14. I subscribe to Breitbart's rss feeds to monitor the enemy. #

  15. The loaded with false propaganda #

  16. That is not to say that I agree with Obama of course. #

  17. Global-warming denial is peeking through there in that article, and global-warming denial is woefully ignorant at best. #

  18. We should have universal, single-payer healthcare at the very least. As a Christian, I say that no one should be turned away. #

  19. It's Good Samaritanism. Yes, I'm not for coercive socialism however. #

  20. The Breitbart-types are very much in favor of coercion just so long as it's coercing in what they want to ram down our throats. #

  21. The original Tea Party is being co-opted by neocons and National Socialists against the desires of many original Tea Party members. #

  22. All Tea Party members are not racist. Only some are. #

  23. The question is, is Andrew Breitbart for equal opportunity when he shovels muck? Where is his heart? What is his first principle? #

  24. I don't disagree with everything Andrew Breitbart says. I don't know anyone who can't speak in half-truths. #

  25. Come on. Andrew Breitbart is not a Libertarian/Tea Party liner. He's a Reaganite. Reagan was no Libertarian. Real Libertarians are anti-war. #

  26. I'm now following @MicCheckRadio #


Powered by Twitter Tools


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.