Twitter Digest: October 11, 2011

  1. Twitter Digest: October 10, 2011 October 10, 2011 @ 17:03

  2. Real Christian position on the secular Gold Standard October 10, 2011 @ 17:03

  3. Real Christian positions on war, death penalty: Young man goes with truth in heartbeat October 10, 2011 @ 17:03

  4. October 10, 2011 @ 21:16

  5. #ows The Fed holds $871 bil. in mortgage-backed securities not marked to market. It's the "bad bank" but refuses to write it off. October 10, 2011 @ 22:58

  6. RT @reuters: Fed's Lockhart - Banks should shoulder own losses #ows October 10, 2011 @ 23:00

  7. #ows William K. Black differs with this: "Federal Reserve: We Still Don't Know How to Unwind Huge Financial Failures" October 10, 2011 @ 23:05

  8. RT @GreeGreece Boston: Pigs(?) raid OB camp, arrest 100+-, beat Veterans for Peace, crush all occupiers' property. #ows October 11, 2011 @ 10:11

  9. #ows William K. Black @WilliamKBlack differs: "Fed: We Don't Know How to Unwind Huge Financial Failures" October 11, 2011 @ 14:43

  10. #ows #occupy WWWD? (What Would Washington Do?) as in President Washington. October 11, 2011 @ 15:27

  11. #ows #occupy WWJD? (What Would Jefferson Do?) as in President Jefferson. October 11, 2011 @ 15:28

  12. Cops are wrong: #ows US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment I: " law respecting...right of the people peaceably to assemble...." October 11, 2011 @ 15:37

  13. Get injunctions against cops. #ows US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment I: "...right of the people peaceably to assemble...." October 11, 2011 @ 15:41

  14. #OccupyBoston Get legal injunctions against the police based on Amendment I of the US Constitution. You have lawyers! October 11, 2011 @ 15:43

  15. #ows #ACLU Any judge worth his/her salt will issue a restraining order against cops violating the 1st Amendment. Do it! October 11, 2011 @ 15:46

  16. #ows such thing as an "Unlawful Assembly" that is a First Amendment (peaceful, public property, ...) assembly. Get injunctions. October 11, 2011 @ 16:08

  17. "Boston Cops Attack Veterans for Peace" @haveyoumetter @DigBoston This was an unconstitutional/illegal police action. October 11, 2011 @ 16:11

  18. If Warren wins (should), Obama will have blown it for banksters by not appointing her "consumer-protection czarina." October 11, 2011 @ 16:28

  19. Capitalists piss on what worked too well: "Kibbutznik:...Israeli farm?" Socialism never worked? Total bull! October 11, 2011 @ 16:36

  20. @esraa_ali @ayakhalil I am aware that many Muslims do not persecute Christians. I was speaking only of those who do. Thank you. Peace! October 11, 2011 @ 16:40

  21. @andzika1 @ayakhalil Of course, not all Egyptian Muslims persecute Copts. There are those who do though. You know that. October 11, 2011 @ 16:50

  22. @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil #SCAR kill Muslims & Copts, but if Muslims hadn't been persecuting Copts, it wouldn't have happened. True? October 11, 2011 @ 16:54

  23. @ircpresident @ayakhalil "Army killed civilians, that's it!" No, that's not it. Who was persecuting Copts? Who caused the army to step in? October 11, 2011 @ 16:55

  24. @ayakhalil "yet u don't reply to any of my tweets or anyone else's tweets in response...." Learn to hold your water. I have a job. October 11, 2011 @ 16:57

  25. @row1seat5 "you risk your money, only then U get a say" Your position is weak-minded fascism. Democracy is everyone gets a say, rich or not. October 11, 2011 @ 17:00

  26. #ows @KoozkLimanow2 I just unfollowed @MachahirNews because of the repeated indirect-tweeter get-people-to-follow tactic. October 11, 2011 @ 17:05

  27. #ows There is strong cussing in this, so don't watch if you'll be offended: Marine Vet tells Sean Hannity, "@#$% off" October 11, 2011 @ 17:15

  28. Join the Cause: "Free Mordechai Vanunu": He blew the whistle on Zionist Israel's huge, secret nuclear-weapons program. . October 11, 2011 @ 22:31

  29. A false-flag is close to a sure thing from these pathological liars. "Iran Behind Terrorist Plot, Holder Says" October 11, 2011 @ 23:05

  30. @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil "muslim did not persecute copts" If that's true, then the Copts are lying. Why would they do that? October 11, 2011 @ 23:13

  31. @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil The Copts say they were protesting a recent attack on a church in southern Egypt. Who attacked the Church? October 11, 2011 @ 23:18

  32. @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil The army killed the Christians, but did Muslim members of the army do it? Will they be prosecuted? October 11, 2011 @ 23:20

  33. @RaghdaSalama @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil "I find the generalizations here quite offensive!" Generalizations? Are you reading things in? October 11, 2011 @ 23:28

  34. @RaghdaSalama @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil I have been speaking specifically only about those who persecute and kill. October 11, 2011 @ 23:30

  35. @RaghdaSalama @Sham3a0 @esraa_ali @ayakhalil I am every bit as much opposed to those who call themselves Christians persecuting others. October 11, 2011 @ 23:32


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.