Twitter Digest: August 22, 2011

  1. Twitter Digest: August 20, 2011 August 20, 2011 @ 13:25

  2. Buy a bond, you gamble. The issuer crashes, you lose. Otherwise, it's rigged. Superrich bond holders are being "bailed out" via your taxes. August 21, 2011 @ 06:02

  3. I liked a @YouTube video Dubious Evidence Israeli Bus Attackers Based in Gaza August 21, 2011 @ 06:14

  4. I favorited a @YouTube video Dubious Evidence Israeli Bus Attackers Based in Gaza August 21, 2011 @ 06:15

  5. Israeli's proof the Gazans did it: the attackers used Kalashnikovs. Ergo, all Kalashnikov users are Gazans or some Ashkenazim are dimwits. August 21, 2011 @ 14:52

  6. Palestine to UN "non-member state" doesn't require Security Council approval. Why aim low? Force ZOG US to first veto member-state status. August 21, 2011 @ 15:12

  7. ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government): "...conspiracy theory...that [some] Jews secretly control...." — aren't any Jewish Zionists in US gov.? August 21, 2011 @ 15:23

  8. The New York Times is sticking with its story, so it's saying Darrell Issa's proof is a pack of lies? August 21, 2011 @ 15:32

  9. Were Jesus tweeting, what would self-styled "freethinkers" & atheists name lists upon which they'd place him: Illogical, Unreasoning? August 22, 2011 @ 06:01

  10. There was never a stalemate in Libya but planning, training, equipping, setting up, & executing. Shame on Qaddaffi for not reforming. Peace! August 22, 2011 @ 06:31

  11. Time for the EU to throw out the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's definition of anti-Semi... August 22, 2011 @ 07:43

  12. "If Libyan rebels win, can they rule?" What do you mean, if? When they win, they will rule. Hold them to very high standards. August 22, 2011 @ 11:36

  13. Qaddaffi says he will stay in Tripoli "until the end." He's had a death wish. If he can't be dictator, he'd rather be dead. Weak! August 22, 2011 @ 11:48

  14. Qaddaffi's tanks are going to be nothing more than sitting ducks: target practice for tank-killers. Qaddaffi's clinging is only more death. August 22, 2011 @ 12:07

  15. Qaddaffi's current loss is Assad's coming loss. Assad, stop being stupid. You're not helping a soul. You're blowing it. Listening, Putin? August 22, 2011 @ 12:12

  16. Iran cut Hamas funds for failure to support Assad: enemy of one's enemy can be one's enemy. Reportedly, Assad attacked Palestinian refugees. August 22, 2011 @ 12:31

  17. Mustafa Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC), better get to Tripoli to start talking about holding elections ASAP. August 22, 2011 @ 12:51

  18. "Layoffs sweep Wall Street." There will be reprisals. August 22, 2011 @ 13:13

  19. Assad warns military action against him will backfire. Spoken just like Qaddaffi. August 22, 2011 @ 13:16

  20. What's going on between Iran and Hamas shows further that the picture of a united Islamic front against the Zionists has been nonsense. August 22, 2011 @ 13:30


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.