Twitter Digest: May 12, 2011

  1. Twitter Digest: May 9, 2011 May 9, 2011 @ 23:17

  2. "While many cite John Maynard Keynes as favoring government spending during a recession, he never intended to create... May 10, 2011 @ 12:17

  3. "While many cite John Maynard Keynes as favoring government spending during a recession, he never intended to... re: May 10, 2011 @ 12:18

  4. I don't oppose The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (NAT GAS Act) because the pe... (cont) . May 10, 2011 @ 13:56

  5. If you think Obama is anti-bankster, his recent Wall Street fundraiser was a sellout. Apt word that: "sellout." May 10, 2011 @ 14:03

  6. FBI Chastised by Court for Lying About Existence of Surveillance Records May 10, 2011 @ 14:39

  7. I liked a @YouTube video . Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden May 10, 2011 @ 14:59

  8. "The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we woul... (cont) . May 10, 2011 @ 15:24

  9. The Koch Brothers are anti-democratic. The less democratic a state, the greater the concentration of power in the hands of rich elitists. May 12, 2011 @ 12:58

  10. The less democratic a state, the greater the concentration of power in the hands of rich elitists and the worse things become. May 12, 2011 @ 12:59

  11. The Koch Brothers are anarcho-capitalists. They seek anarchy where the only vote is via the unit of the medium of exchange (money, mammon). May 12, 2011 @ 13:03

  12. The more Tea Party members (people who follow the anarchist-capitalist Koch Brothers), the worse the general quality of life. May 12, 2011 @ 13:09

  13. People who don't know God don't know good. The definition of God is goodness. If you know what good truly is, you know God. May 12, 2011 @ 13:13

  14. If assassinating Osama bin Laden was OK rather than taking him alive, why are there laws in the US against killing citizens the same way? May 12, 2011 @ 13:19

  15. I like this Freudian slip by Les Leopold: "...banks would trade the junk bank and forth among themselves...." . May 12, 2011 @ 14:04

  16. If the FBI didn't have proof Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda did 9/11, then where did Barack Obama get the authority to assassinate him? May 12, 2011 @ 14:32

  17. Where are the voices in the US Senate & House calling for eliminating the National Debt via United States Notes? Where are the journalists? May 12, 2011 @ 15:27

  18. House Speaker John Boehner thinks ending subsidies to oil & gas is a tax hike that would hurt the people. John, who pays for the subsidies? May 12, 2011 @ 15:33

  19. Why do I want my tax payments to subsidize oil & gas when I want to shift from oil, gas, coal, & nuclear to clean, sustainable alternatives? May 12, 2011 @ 15:35

  20. The Tea Partiers are mostly anti-tax, but the Boston Tea Party wasn't anti-tax, per se, but pro-democracy. Taxation with representation. May 12, 2011 @ 15:44


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.