TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, February 27, 2010

  1. The House voted 406 to 19 to repeal health-insurance anti-trust exemption. Trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt's spirit smiles. Glenn Beck frowns. #

  2. Obama backed off the public option for health care. Now he's backing off consumer financial-protection. #

  3. Obama's "tough talk" against banksters a few weeks ago was just for show. He trotted out Volker but is only taking Volker's worst advice. #

  4. Volker wants curbs on banks doing proprietary trading. Proprietary trading is a conflict of interest. Obama is ignoring Volker on it. #

  5. In a speech to the "conservative" Business Roundtable (monopolistic), didn't Obama ignore FDR's public works that put millions to work? #

  6. To Hell with systemic unemployment for the sake of the superrich who want poor people competing for the lowest pay possible. #

  7. "This country [Israel] exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself.... [cont.] #

  8. [cont.] ...It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." — Golda Meir (Le Monde, October 15, 1971) #

  9. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: ... [cont.] #

  10. [cont.] ...for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (Jeremiah 29:7) #

  11. Golda Meir versus Jeremiah 29:7: To get a flavor of what's going on there, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....ael_Shahak #

  12. Obama says to Big Business he believes in a free market. Where's the free market of ideas? He excludes single-payer from that "free market." #

  13. Who's worse for human and civil rights, Honduran so-called president Porfirio Lobo or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez? #

  14. I raise the issue because the US corporate mainstream media harps anti-Chavez themes but ignores the U.S.-backed dictatorship in Honduras. #

  15. People are complaining that Citi shut down homosexual social-networking bank accounts. Are there no lines that organizations may draw? #

  16. What was the offending company site (Fabulis) doing that Citibank found "objectionable?" Were they putting up pornographic materials? #

  17. If Citi can't shut down homosexual social-networking bank accounts, can they shut down pederasty social-networking bank accounts? #

  18. Can Citibank shut down pedophile social-networking bank accounts, or would there be a huge outcry and reversal? #

  19. If Citi can't shut down homosexual social-networking bank accounts, why can Citi shut down the bank accounts of others on "social" grounds? #

  20. The argument of the legality of homosexuality arises, but how much power does the state have when the state won't regulate toxic securities? #

  21. The state can force Citi to accept the "objectionable," but it won't rein in hedge funds, claw back bonuses, & end proprietary trading? #

  22. Canada's problem: Greed/Oil Sands: http://electronicintifada.net/.....1102.shtml & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._Oil_Sands #

  23. It's no mere coincidence that Venezuela has huge, heavy, oil-sands reserves imperialists want to control. .... [cont.] #

  24. [cont.] ... http://yvesengler.com/2010/02/.....venezuela/ Canada has huge oil sands reserves. #

  25. Tom - Hart Viges wrote on his Wall about 5 hours ago: "Non-Military Options for Youth just got kicked out of Bowie... . #

  26. Youth awakening: Obama the war-mongering phony. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....78733.html #

  27. Gov. Corzine Wrong About Goldman's Unpopularity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77931.html #

  28. Mike Lux, "The Philosophy of Me...." http://bit.ly/bml8ZC..... Read: "...BECK'S CPAC 2010 KEYNOTE ADDRESS: BECK RIPS...." http://bit.ly/dyc2sV..... #

  29. Re: fabulis, I rec'd a link: http://ow.ly/1pjp0d..... It didn't address my questions about pederasty or pedophilia, etc. I did reply. [cont.] #

  30. @roncallari Re: fabulis, One assumed these possibilities, but what was originally deemed objectionable and what of porn, etc.? Cuts 2 ways in reply to roncallari #

  31. @Sean_Kinney Thanks. I wasn't sure how it would be received. I have a real knack for upsetting people because I don't fit on either side. in reply to Sean_Kinney #

  32. A PUBLIC EXAMPLE OF DEEP-SEATED SEXUAL ILLNESS: THE OUT-OF-CONTROL HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR http://ff.im/-gEQob..... #

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.