Twitter Digest: July 22, 2011

  1. Twitter Digest: July 20, 2011 July 20, 2011 @ 12:48

  2. "Report: Israeli killed in New Zealand earthquake was Mossad agent" 5 Passports is not science fiction. July 20, 2011 @ 12:51

  3. I liked a @YouTube video 24 Hours of Reality July 21, 2011 @ 01:03

  4. The front line of climate wars - Times Union July 21, 2011 @ 01:09

  5. 30 Days to a FREE Vanunu! - Arabisto July 21, 2011 @ 01:47

  6. A quintessential Israel-firster — detrimental to "American" interests: "Hollywood producer...Israeli nuclear agent" July 21, 2011 @ 01:59

  7. Christian Zionists [no such thing] unite in D.C. to express support for Israel - Haaretz July 21, 2011 @ 02:15

  8. Organic Spies Volume II: Dean Foods, Land O'Lakes and Monsanto. Part 1 July 21, 2011 @ 02:56

  9. Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World's Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say | Common Dreams July 21, 2011 @ 03:30

  10. Want to know why? "World War II: Still Being Touted as the Quintessential Keynesian Miracle" | The Beacon July 21, 2011 @ 06:46

  11. "What a hoax to pretend that teachers' pensions or environmental protections are responsible for a debt tha... (cont) . July 21, 2011 @ 07:07

  12. The Clinton Foundation here reminds me of the Clinton administration then. Save the Haitians by making them sick? July 21, 2011 @ 08:19

  13. Scathing: The Murdoch hacking scandal and class "justice" July 21, 2011 @ 08:48

  14. Never write anything on FB you couldn't handle attributed to you on the front page of the NYT. "FB Aids Gov. Searches" July 21, 2011 @ 09:00

  15. "'Those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policie... (cont) . July 21, 2011 @ 09:27

  16. This man was convicted of terrorism over the code word "chaudry" the meaning of which prosecutors never showed he knew. July 21, 2011 @ 10:58

  17. I'm sure seeing a whole lot of articles claiming Pakistan and Iran are cozying up. I'm not saying they aren't hedged. July 21, 2011 @ 12:09

  18. "...halter-top to be worn by the child; it's decorated with two flowers carefully positioned where the nipples would be." That's misleading. July 21, 2011 @ 12:15

  19. If you're going to have a breastfeeding doll, don't teach kids that babies suck on flowers on a halter-top rather than nipples. Be real. July 21, 2011 @ 12:17

  20. "69% Think Competition Between Health Insurers Better for Consumers Than More Government Regulation." We need single-payer. July 21, 2011 @ 12:21

  21. "A majority of voters nationwide agree with automatically testing all welfare applicants for illegal drug use." It's counter-productive. July 21, 2011 @ 14:32

  22. The Alarming Revival of Ayn Rand: The Rights Weirdest Idol of Them All July 21, 2011 @ 15:40

  23. "63 percent of voters favored greater government oversight of financial companies. Nearly three-quarters suppo... (cont) . July 22, 2011 @ 09:50

  24. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total fina... (cont) . July 22, 2011 @ 10:07

  25. In science, evolution isn't called a theory for nothing. To hold otherwise is to fail epistemology. Teach that in science classes. July 22, 2011 @ 10:51

  26. In Ohio in November, the people, not the Koch Bros., will decide whether public employees have union rights such as the right to strike. July 22, 2011 @ 10:54

  27. @Todzilla You are mistaken. Once something is proven in science at that level, it is no longer termed a theory but a law. July 22, 2011 @ 11:46

  28. Obama's hyper-Zionism defended: Is he even an Israeli-Firster? Very doubtful. July 22, 2011 @ 12:12

  29. @Todzilla Within "science," relativity could move from theory to law. Have you studied both epistemology and the philosophy of science? July 22, 2011 @ 12:32

  30. @Todzilla Which "law of science" is not dependent upon the type of time (theoretical) to which you referred? July 22, 2011 @ 12:34


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.