The U.S. wants to put radar in the Czech Republic. The U.S. wants to put ABMs in Poland. The U.S. gave Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia the go-ahead to start a war of aggression against the Ossetians.

Poland is probably the most conservative (Bush-like) state in Europe. Poland and the U.S. just signed a mutual-defense-pact agreement that includes the installation of AMBs. Understand here that the U.S. has unilaterally broken the ABM Treaty. Also, when the Soviet Union was being asked to open up and disband the Warsaw Pact (Soviet mutual-defense pact with all of the Eastern European nations in the Soviet Union), part of the deal included that the U.S. would not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations.

So, here you have the U.S. breaking treaties, installing radar and ABMs, getting puppets to attack right on Russia's border, and expanding NATO after promising it would not. Now who's the troublemaker, Russia?

Russia doesn't have all the modern conventional weapons that the U.S. has. It has modernized weapons, but not in the number the U.S. has right now. They can't compete on that level, and they aren't going to be sucked into trying. They are relying on the nuclear deterrent. Russian General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said as much today. It has been stated before. The U.S. knows this but is still pressing ahead to antagonize the Russians. It's obvious. If the U.S. attacks the Russian military, the Russians will they believe have no option but to turn to their nuclear option. They do have excellent rockets. Anyone who has read about the subject knows that they were decades ahead of the U.S. in rocketry just a few decades ago. It's a question as to whether the U.S. has really caught up even yet. Also, the Russians have not been standing still while the U.S. has been developing weapons. They've been selective about where they've been spending their money, time, and energies. We saw the results in Lebanon when Israeli tanks with U.S. active armor were destroyed by Russian technology that overcame the highly advanced active armor. It was a shock to Israel and the main reason they pulled out of Lebanon.

Now, the Russians have said that they have new intercontinental technology that can defeat U.S. anti-missile technology. So, maybe you're saying then why do they care that the U.S. is putting stuff into Europe that the Russians have already overcome. Well, things continue to evolve. What will the U.S. roll out next? The Russians don't want to be caught during the interim period between roll-out and the time they, the Russians, come up with a counter-solution.

Yes, Russia sells weapons to foes of Israel and the U.S., but Israel and the U.S. sell weapons to foes of Russia and of Russia's allies.

This has all been a plan by neocons to force issues. That's their style. They're pushy. They like putting violent pressure on people. They like to reduce things to sound-bite propagandistic lies. They like to circulate their talking-point lies they have in the wings. They like to roll out their agreements and laws they have in the wings too. They're sickeningly transparent.

Is Russia going to just rollover because Condi Rice barks at them? Who does she think she is? She shows no mundane deference to people who can still wipe out the U.S., the only people who really can.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are pawns given up by the neocons to force Georgia into NATO regardless of whether France and Germany approve. The Israelis and the U.S. neocons are in charge. Europe isn't run by Europeans. They have more people and their economy is actually larger now by many estimates, but they still let the U.S. tell them what to do.

Really, as I wrote August 10th, the U.S. "has done a terrible job vis-à-vis Russia ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The dumbest thing was not coming to the economic aid of the Russians right away. George H. W. Bush just sat on his hands." (See: GEORGIA, RUSSIA, AND WAR: NEOCON PLUTOCRATS MUST GO: ENEMIES OF HUMAN KIND.)

When will the people ever pick wise leaders? When will the people ever stop buying the leaders the plutocrats handpick for 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)

  • 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.