So-Called Liberal Site, "Freaked Out Nation," Freaked Out by (Then Censored) My Comments on Tom Cotton & Tehran, Iran

I had commented around the Internet a bit on the subject of whether Tom Cotton had known that Tehran is the capital of Iran and "got into it" on one site in particular: "Tehran Tom Is Alarmed That The Capital Of Iran Is Controlled By Iran."

However, if you go to that post and scroll down to see the comment section, you will find that it says, "You must be logged in to post a comment." That means they turned off the DISQUS commenting on that post.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check whether they automatically do that with old posts after they get to a certain age (which I doubted because DISQUS would still allow the older comments to be seen). Well, they don't. There are older posts where the DISQUS commenting is still on. What they apparently did is turn off DISQUS comments on a few "Tom Cotton" posts.

It seems clear they didn't want people to be able to read what I wrote there and didn't want me chiming in on other "Tom Cotton" posts around the same time. I had stopped commenting there but simply thought it would be wise to show them how to handle Tom Cotton without resorting to making things up about him, such as that he didn't know Tehran is the capital of Iran. That's how I found out that they had taken the steps they did to send what I wrote there down the Orwellian memory hole.

I simply planned to post a link to my more recent post on Tom Cotton: "More on US Senator Tom Cotton, Republican, Arkansas: Where and Why He's So Wrong."


Tom Usher

Look, people can censor all they want on their privately run blogs. I censor here. Some things just go beyond the pale. Some people want to swear up a storm or post porn or troll endlessly (not answer questions, etc.). However, I was certainly not unreasonable in any of my comments on that blog post. Their moderators hadn't cautioned me about violating any of their rules or anything. What they did was simply block others from seeing that they (Freaked Out Nation) had made a mistake by going along with the falsehood that Cotton didn't know the capital of Iran. To me, that's cowardly and dishonest on top of being wrong. It's what gives "liberal" a bad name.

So, here's the link [link removed due to code no longer being supported by newer browsers] to the discussion thread that was on that post. (Note: It loads accurately and quickly in Chrome.) That discussion thread is still there on their site (in their database and accessible, if you know what you're doing; I'm not talking about hacking either).


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.