Reuters Censoring Legit Comments: Protests in French cities against plans to legalize gay marriage

In reply to "ahms" there, I attempted to post the following; but rather than allowing the comment, I was banned by Reuters from ever commenting on the Reuters site again.

So "ahms," your comment can certainly be turned back around on you. Homosexuals who "marry" one another do have sex with each other. The men (most of them for sure) do sodomize each other. That act is fraught with medical problems.

In addition, I find it very interesting and informative that an extremely higher percentage of homosexuals were homosexually molested as children than were children who grew up to be heterosexual. How do you explain that, or don't you bother with such facts but rather simply try to ignore them?

Oh, and the faithfulness or exclusivity with homosexual marriages is much less than for heterosexual marriages. Why is that? Where's the "love"? Is it shared around loosely?

And in the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage and tolerance has been going on for quite a while now, the rates of psychological problems for homosexuals is still much greater than for heterosexuals. What's up with that? You can't blame it on heterosexuals not "tolerating" them.

Comments: Protests in French cities against plans to legalize gay marriage | Reuters

The only reason I was banned is because the pro-homosexual false-propagandists at Reuters don't want their readership to see facts that dispute Reuters' articles. In addition to having posted comments attempting to straighten out the falsehoods spewed by Reuters concerning homosexuality, I had also taken them to task for the lies about Zionism and the Palestinian horror.

An example is that Reuters falsely claims that Israel invaded Gaza because the Gazans, mostly Hamas, had been attacking Israel with rockets. The fact though is that month after month before the invasion, the rockets had gone down, down, down to almost nothing (and Israel admitted it openly; I posted the proof video on this blog at the time) and Hamas was stopping rogue elements in Gaza from firing more rockets. There's a great deal more to it than that, but Reuters toes the Zionists pro-homosexuality line. That's just how it is. Reuters is not objective.

I also made clear that the US was not saying that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons but that the US only now states that the US suspects Iran of that. The US made that change because, for one, I was saying it all over the place, in commenting, on this blog, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc. Reuters also actually changed it subsequent articles, but for how long now that they don't have to hear it from me directly in their commenting system?

I certainly didn't violate any of Reuters "commenting rules."

Frankly, what the Reuters system says is that you will be rewarded for being PC in Reuters' eyes. You can disagree but only within their bubble.

I also went from able to comment to banned in one step and without ever being informed of which supposed rule I had violated. It's pure censorship of free political speech and without legitimate justification.

You can see from my comment above that I stayed right on subject concerning another approved comment.

That's too much for Reuters to deal with though: Petty and cowardly!

I sure would like to be able to find a decent news source. All the major sources are "Politically Correct," which means pro-homosexuality, pro-Zionism, anti-Iran (no matter what), etc.: Pathetic and not to be trusted!


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.