1. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-02 #

  2. Obama wants to increase the Pentagon budget by $44 billion. War-profiteering is what that is. Obama is a grandiose front man of spoliators. #

  3. The Democrats chose a hawk, an anti-environmentalist, and someone pro-nuclear power when solar and wind are where the nation should go. #

  4. Obama wants huge nuclear so the people benefit less from their own power-generating equipment. He's working against what's best. #

  5. If the Obama administration doesn't hold John Yoo and Jay Bybee to account for their war crimes, Obama will be keeping his campaign promise. #

  6. That's right. He ran on letting them off. He ran on letting all of the war-criminals off. The plutocrats let him win because he promised it. #

  7. The U.S. suspended flying injured Haitians to U.S. hospitals for 5 days. Florida ran out of room. Fly them everywhere. Fill every hospital. #

  8. According to Israel's Justice Ministry, Israel can murder Americans peacefully protesting in Palestine. They did that to Tristan Anderson. #

  9. The Israelis shot a high-velocity tear gas canister right at his head and murdered him. No one is to be held to account for that murder. #

  10. Obama is restarting open funding for his fascists in Honduras. The coup was illegal and loaded with human-rights abuses including murders. #

  11. Israel claims that "disciplining" 2 for white-phosphorus crimes proves Israel moral. They would never have done it but for global outrage. #

  12. That's only the tip of the iceberg on Israeli war crimes against Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. #

  13. "No one other than the Iranian rulers and their agents denies that the regime [Iran] is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal." #

  14. That stupid comment in my last Tweet comes from Daniel Pipes. #

  15. Daniel Pipes, I challenge you openly right here. Produce one shred of hard evidence Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. Put up, or shut up. #

  16. Neither Daniel Pipes nor anyone else will produce one shred of hard evidence Iran has a nuclear-weapons program because there is none. #

  17. Even if there were, the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, and Israel have no legal right to prevent the Iranians from joining the nuclear club. #

  18. The Iranians have the legal right to opt out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has nuclear weapons but is not even a member. #

  19. Claire Short, International Development Secretary, under Tony Blair: Blair lied in the build up to war. #

  20. Claire Short on Tony Blair: Blair deceived her about his commitment to UN involvement. #

  21. Claire Short on Tony Blair again: Blair's Cabinet never had meaningful debates about Iraq (or, indeed, anything else). #

  22. Source for Clair Short at the Chilcot Inquiry: lead-up to the Iraq War: #

  23. Now that Ahmadinejad has agreed to send all Iranian uranium abroad for 20%-grade enrichment, the Zionists have lost another round? #

  24. Currently reading 'Confidential 2001 "Contract for Iraqi People"' : #

  25.;aid=17307 "Obama...secret for...FBI to have skirted...privacy protections." #

  26. It is not legal for Obama to overturn the citizenry's privacy laws. His orders aren't worth the paper they are written on. #

  27. Also, no Federal judge has the authority or power to uphold Obama's illegal orders. #

  28. The U.S. is a lawless state so long as these fascists remain in office. #

  29. I don't recognize their authority as legal. The U.S. is a police state so long as the FBI and others act on such blatantly fascistic orders. #

  30. I'm speaking in the mundane here. Even if they were to adhere to the "highest" standards under the U.S. Constitution, they'd fall short. #


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.