I been discussing (writing about) the U.S. neocon plans concerning Georgia and Europe, etc. Well, I've mentioned Israel a few times, but really you can't talk about neocons without looking deeper to the Zionist Project and Israel.
The neocons for the most part were once Democrats. However, when the New Left started to mean that Americans weren't to hate Russia (Soviet Union) at a time when Russia was supporting and arming Arabs, the neocon-Democrat Jews became alarmed for the Zionists Project and switched to the Republican Party. They designed a strategy to move the U.S. to look upon Israel as a strategic ally against the so-called Communist Block and its aspirations for global rule. Of course, the Communists were never any more a Block than was the so-called free world and actually less so.
Anyway, the neocons are political Zionists (not true Zionists who are peace loving; the neocons are war-mongers). Their first loyalty is to Israel. They are all through the American government. They are in high places in the White House. They are members of the Senate and House. They haven't exactly taken over the Supreme Court, but the self-styled conservatives on the court certainly don't slap down the neocon U.S. attorneys general.
Now, the Zionists sent Israeli Defense Force generals and many others to Georgia to train the Georgians. The Israelis supplied Georgia with pilotless drones too and many other types of weapons. They knew that Russia would strike back if Georgia attacked South Ossetia.
Here's the deal. Russia arms Hezbollah and Iran and others that Israel sees as its enemies or rivals. Many Zionists moved to Israel from Russia by way of Russia but also by way of America. Many Russian Jews had gone to America and many of their descendants moved to Israel. Those Russian Jews remember the Russian pogroms (massacres). They don't trust the Russians. They don't like them. They have revenge in their hearts toward them.
Of course, this completely ignores the Jewish control of the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Marx, of course, was Jewish. Lenin was partly Jewish. Many others surrounding Lenin had much more Jewish blood in them. There are those who claim Stalin had a Jewish mother. It's hard to know for sure who is telling the truth. Understand here that Marxism is not Judaism. Marxism is in fact atheistic. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks were often outwardly vengeful for what had happened to Jews in Russia. This subject area is difficult to pin down, since each side is so extreme and prone to lying, or more so telling only one side of the story and in a very slanted manner.
So, in Israel and the U.S., you find many Jews clamoring for war against the enemies of the Jewish people as they see them. These people are motivated by a mixture of emotions from revenge to imperial ambitions to paranoia to Talmudic fanaticism and more. It's the imperial ambition though that calls the shots, and paranoia (holocaust) is the primary cover. The Talmudic aspect is really the religion of imperialism. Revenge is supposed to be an inside-the-family topic, but there are so many outspoken Jews that they can hardly keep it a secret.
Also, Israel wants more Jews to move to Israel. They want more people so they can out number the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. There are reportedly about 13,000 Jews in Georgia. Some of them have just left and are in Israel now. The immigration service in Israel is delighted.
By pushing Georgia into doing this, Israel has made it less likely that Russia will support greater sanctions on Iran. Israel is already upset with Germany for Germany's natural gas liquefaction contract with Iran. The Germans might be less inclined to back away now, and they weren't inclined before. They also weren't inclined toward Georgia joining NATO. All combined, this lessens ostensible U.S. efforts to get Russia on board with further U.N. sanctions and so increases Israelis' likelihood for attacking Iran. Remember though that the U.S. was already massing its fleet.
Turkey is negotiating an energy deal with Iran. China has made an energy deal with Iran and so have Afghanistan and India. Russia is selling Iran advanced anti-aircraft weapons. With the U.S. losing economic power around the world, the only thing it has are spies and operatives, military bases all over, and tons of the most advanced military hardware of all kinds. The Military-Industrial Complex is the business of the U.S. now. The U.S. isn't making much anymore. It has been mostly a consumer-driven economy ever since the plutocrats took over. It grows plenty, but that will become much more difficult if global warming continues. The spoils of war is the fallback position that has been setup by the war-mongering weapons corporations.
What do you think they're going to do if the people don't stop supporting them?
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)