Twitter Digest: March 20, 2011

  1. Twitter Digest: March 19, 2011 via @AddToAny #

  2. . التغريد دايجست : 19 مارس 2011 #

  3. If, as the AP reports, Qaddaffi "sent warplanes, tanks and troops into Benghazi" well after he "ordered" a ceasefire, he will be removed. #

  4. If Qaddaffi's children have any brains, they will remove their father from power and throw themselves upon the mercy of the court. #

  5. US Navy vessels in the Mediterranean launched missiles against Qaddaffi's air defenses on the Libyan coast.

    Fu... (cont) . #

  6. US Navy launched 110 cruise missiles against Qaddaffi's air defenses. #

  7. Down: Evil dictators, nuclear, oil, gas, coal, banksters, & austerity. Up: Informed consent, solar, wind, geothermal, & United States Notes. #

  8. No nukes!: Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear power report: 14 'near misses' at US plants due to 'lax oversight'" #

  9. "14,000 were confirmed dead or missing in Japan...492,000 are homeless...850,000 households without electricity in freezing temperatures." #

  10. "fire engines...water cannon...spray...9,000 gallons of water...radiation levels...4,000 millisieverts an hour immediately afterwards." #

  11. Read: "4,000 millisieverts an hour" "People exposed to such doses will suffer radiation sickness and many will die." #

  12. "Michigan Dems charged in fake tea party scandal" "tea partiers began accusing Democrats...of...fake candidates" . #

  13. I oppose censoring homosexuals' secular, political speech/press while many of them hypocritically censor others. #

  14. Qaddaffi: Fake Democratic Socialist: "Qaddaffi...reactionary...reinvigorating tribalism as a tool for his own power." #

  15. There isn't going to be an "Oil for Food" deal with Qaddaffi. Qaddaffi isn't going to be treated as the government. He's not in Saddam's seat. #

  16. "Don't Blame Liberal Individualism for the Nuclear Crisis": "...perhaps it is based more simply on a willfu... (cont) . #

  17. Social democracies in the Middle East, etc., will still want to sell their oil. They won't cost so much in blood and suffering though. #

  18. Social democracies in the Middle East, etc., will own their oil. Would-be rival empires won't. Besides, the US needs to get off oil. #

  19. Needed Obama Doctrine: The US will accept/support democratic, market-socialist regimes over dictators in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. #

  20. Saudi King Abdullah, to put it bluntly, is a selfish snake. He has ordered his troops and security forces to murder peaceful demonstrators. #

  21. Saudi King Abdullah's forces attack demonstrators in Bahrain & Saudi Arabia. Hillary complained but issued no ultimatum. Why the hypocrisy? #

  22. Saudi invasion of Bahrain: A UK "Christian" Paleoconservative's take #

  23. The US, UK, & France stand against Qaddaffi. Then also stand up against Saudi King Abdullah, Bahraini King Khalifa, & Yemeni President Saleh. #

  24. Otherwise right, Max Keiser (in France) calls for violent US revolution. #

  25. Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia recognize Palestinian state @ '67 border; but @ '47 border is just. #

  26. Persecuted for exposing US war crimes: RT @wikileaks: Ellsberg & 29 arrested defending whistle blower Bradley Manning . #

  27. Right now in American politics, hypocrisy is a given. "The US: The National Image and its Contradictions" #

  28. I liked a YouTube video — Bahraini medics recount hospital horror . #

  29. Qaddaffi is insane to send forces against such "civilian support": #

  30. The US military says regime change in Libya is not the "mission," but the inevitable conclusion of consistent international actions is. #

  31. Of course, the US, France, Britain, etc., should not target civilians but deliberately avoid hitting them. Regardless, Qaddaffi should quit. #

  32. Reportedly, Qaddaffi has issued a second ceasefire. If there already was one, why the second? Were his forces not listening the first time? #

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.