PART 16: GEORGIA STARTED THE WAR IN SOUTH OSSETIA

     

"Why did the West ignore the truth about the war in Georgia?" by Mary Dejevsky. The Independent. November 12, 2008.

The US and UK left the impression that Russia was the guilty party
...
The journalists travelled to the region separately and by different routes. They spoke to different people. But their findings are consistent: Georgia launched an indiscriminate military assault on South Ossetia's main town, Tskhinvali. The hospital was among the buildings attacked; doctors were injured even as they operated.

The timing of the Georgian attack, as of the arrival of the first Russian reinforcements two days later, coincides for the most part with the original Russian version.
...

That's what we said from the start.

Donate


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.
    • NickPartock

      I came across your site today and, to be honest, the overall impression I get is of a very convoluted and thinly veiled left wing blog which is just a tad too politically loaded to be taken seriously by the mainstream. Many of the things you say may be correct but the conclusions tend to be strangely always the same and somewhat predictable (i.e. western capitalism is evil, Bush is evil, money is evil, Russia is nice really, etc.) In other words - nothing new (under the sun).

      My main concerns for your web-site (if you are ever going to reach out to those you clearly seem to hate - or even to attract the 'floating voters' of this world - are these:-

      1. Even your explanation of your cryptic name is so convuluted it becomes a flowery essay within itself.

      A real turn-off, unfortunately.

      2. Your whole site is negatively inclined, in that you tend to criticise a whole multitude of those who you disagree with; but you do not express positvely and concisely what YOU are about. One has to glean it through acres of negative verbiage.

      3. Your conclusions inevitably seem to bring you to criticising your own country and its allies whilst minimising your country's enemies' faults. With your knowledge of the Bible you would surely know how we are exhorted to respect the authorities placed over us. Of course, these authorities are wrong sometimes, just as all of us are wrong sometimes; but there is no sign that you are reluctant or restrained in criticising; indeed, you seem to relish every opportunity. I would prefer to see a deep reluctance to criticise and the use of humble and more measured terms. The Bible exhorts us to think of others as better than ourselves. That would presumably include you and me as well as Bush or Blair. Lets not fall into the trap laid for those who would try to prove they are the better followers of Christ. Christ alone knows (stated reverently).

      The Living Word be with you.

      VNP.

      29 Nov 08

    • @NickPartock -

      Nick,

      Do you believe that convolution is never a sign of the reader's lack of comprehension? What arguments did you find difficult? What do you think about Jesus's parables? Do any of them deserve the label "convoluted" in the sense you've used the term? If they are so straight forward (I believe they are), why does the mainstream, you seem to use as the measure of correctness, have such difficulty understanding the message?

      There is nothing thinly veiled on this blog. There is nothing veiled at all. If anything, you would have been honest in saying "it's in your face." I've had people openly compliment that the blog doesn't hide. The site definitely is politically loaded. The message of Christ is politically loaded. Thank you for the compliment, even though you intended it as a slight.

      Few find the strait and narrow (so far); yet, you come here talking as if, if I will only conform then I will be "taken seriously by the mainstream." I'm not in the mainstream. Thank God! I'm not joining the mainstream. Those in the mainstream are to come out. One thing though is clear from all I've heard and seen about this blog. It's being taken seriously, very seriously.

      Western capitalism is definitely evil. Why don't you know that?

      Bush has done huge evil. Don't you realize that?

      Money is evil. It came out from selfishness. There is no such money in Heaven. The currency there is pure love.

      You say that I conclude "Russia is nice really." Russia and America have potential by virtue of those within each who are capable of hearing the call of Jesus Christ. Russia is making many of the same errors as America. I state that quite clearly on this blog. Before you jump to conclusions, I advise you to inquire first. It would have been an easy matter to have asked me rather than coming here solely to denounce. You could also have done some searches. I have taken Russia and Putin to task on numerous occasions.

      Your timing is such that this very day, my first post contains a rebuke of Putin and Russia. I don't judge him or condemn him or sentence him or punish him. I love the Russian people and the Jewish people and my fellow (whatever I am). I love humanity even as I hate it, the same way as Jesus. I love and hate you too in that way. You should feel the same toward me. You should love me so much that you want for me what I want for you. You should hate me for every selfish feeling in me that might arise. What's wrong with that? Can't you see your way clear to sort that out? If you can't comprehend me here, if you think this paragraph is too convoluted for you, how can you possibly understand the message of Christ?

      Nevertheless, I have stated that I want Putin and all the other leaders to repent but I'm not looking for punishment. Unlike many people, I don't want to see George W. Bush taken from the dock in the court to be hanged, the way he hanged Saddam Hussein. George is my brother who is astray. It would that he could hear me. If he never does, he's the brother dead of spirit until God releases him from Satan's tormentors. That's the way it is. It's up to George. I can't beat my brother into turning from evil. My warning him is out of love that heals if he will accept it.

      You should stop to think about how much of your commentary has run exactly contrary (antichrist) to Jesus's message. Do you believe Jesus is a capitalist? Do you believe Jesus blessed Bush's administration? Do you believe Jesus approved of Bush bombing Iraq killing innocent little babies and pregnant women and doing all the other things: Torture, false imprisonment, bearing false witness, and on and on around the world? What part of "unrighteous mammon" do you not comprehend?

      Jesus hated people. He also loved those same people. Is that too convoluted for you?

      Listen, Nick, you are revealing here who you are. You hate what I've written here. You hate this blog. You hate me. You hate my Jesus and my God. You hate the message of giving and sharing. You hate the terms real, liberal, Christian, and Church that they fit together. Mostly you hate "liberal." You love "conservative." Is that it? You love that term, but only as it suits your antichrist behavior and aims.

      If you love capitalism and think that the things George W. Bush has done aren't evil and you think money isn't the "unrighteous mammon," then who the Hell are you? If you want to repent of all that, then I'll know you as a brother. If you don't want to repent of all that, then you and I won't be together in the New Heaven with Jesus. How could you be there?

      Who doesn't critique that with which one disagrees? What do you expect? Where did Jesus not criticize? His whole message is extremely critical. You need to wake up.

      You say I don't say what I'm about. Did you read the Christian Commons Project™. If you did, or do, and still don't know who I am, so be it.

      My country is Heaven, Nick. My country is going to come here and take over the whole world.

      "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as" it is "in heaven." (Matthew 6:10 KJVR)

      What does that mean to you?

      "Your conclusions inevitably seem to bring you to criticising your own country and its allies whilst minimising your country's enemies' faults."

      I know you are a mundane thinker, so I know you mean America is my country. Who are America's enemies though whose faults I've minimized?

      "With your knowledge of the Bible you would surely know how we are exhorted to respect the authorities placed over us."

      You are getting in way over your head here. I am doing nothing that Jesus didn't do. They murdered him for it.

      "Of course, these authorities are wrong sometimes, just as all of us are wrong sometimes; but there is no sign that you are reluctant or restrained in criticising; indeed, you seem to relish every opportunity."

      The time for parables is over. Do you not know the prophecy?

      "I would prefer to see a deep reluctance to criticise and the use of humble and more measured terms."

      Nick, if you want pablum, go find some.

      "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. " (Matthew 12:34 KJVR)

      Ye "serpents, " ye "generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? " (Matthew 23:33 KJVR)

      "The Bible exhorts us to think of others as better than ourselves."

      Where does it say not to call people "vipers"? Were the vipers better than Jesus in Jesus's eyes?

      "Lets not fall into the trap laid for those who would try to prove they are the better followers of Christ. Christ alone knows (stated reverently)."

      Who wants to prove they are the better followers of Christ? As for Christ alone knowing that, you are more out of your depth here than you were above.

      "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. " (Matthew 7:20 KJVR)

      "The Living Word be with you." You came here to justify yourself. Did you succeed?

      Who are you, really? Are you willing to unmask?

      Tom

    • @NickPartock -

      You wrote:

      I came across your site today and, to be honest, the overall impression I get is of a very convoluted and thinly veiled left wing blog which is just a tad too politically loaded to be taken seriously by the mainstream. Many of the things you say may be correct but the conclusions tend to be strangely always the same and somewhat predictable (i.e. western capitalism is evil, Bush is evil, money is evil, Russia is nice really, etc.) In other words - nothing new (under the sun).

      I stand for the 100%-voluntary, giving-and-sharing-all economy. If that's left-wing, then be sure never to call Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or any other person who stood for or stands for coercive socialism left-wing. This isn't optional. However, they are left-wing. That's because all along the false spectrum there is coercion.

      I stand against the status quo — the worldly world. I stand for turning the current system upside down, which is right-side up and then leveling it. It isn't new. That's because it's the same thing for which Jesus made his stand and still supports. If you don't understand these things, ask. Consult the Gospel. Who washed feet and why? What was and is the message? Who shall be first and last and why? Who is the real servant? Who is the highest?

      Is this all too much for you — too convoluted? How will you enter life? How will you be able to enter the Strait Gate?

      I stand against the Russian system. It is coercive. It is wrong-side up. That position of mine is clear on this blog.

      My main concerns for your web-site (if you are ever going to reach out to those you clearly seem to hate - or even to attract the 'floating voters' of this world - are these:-

      Jesus reached out to those he clearly hated (what they were doing; the fruit they were bringing forth by which he did, and we are to, judge). Many turned. Thousands and thousands of Jews thronged to his message. The self-appointed leaders conspired against him which conspiracy resulted in his murder. Those false-hearted leaders also had a throng. I write the truth here on this blog so that the current batch of such leaders will have less following. I seek to save those who will hear the voice of Christ.

      1. Even your explanation of your cryptic name is so convuluted it becomes a flowery essay within itself.

      The name "Real Liberal Christian Church" is not in the least cryptic to anyone who reads the explanation unless the reader is incapable of comprehending.

      Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:10 KJVR)

      Is that flowery? Just how pompous and bombastic are Isaiah and Jesus in your eyes?

      Your heart is fat. Your ears are heavy. Your eyes are shut. You do not see. You do not hear. You fail to understand. You have not converted. You won't be healed. You lack the faith. You lack the deeds (fruit). Your tree has rotting roots. Wake up. Help me rather than trying to run me down.

      You are the witting or unwitting tool of the one who tempted and tempts. Which is it?

      But he turned, and said unto Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23 KJVR)

      Get thee behind me, Nick!

      A real turn-off, unfortunately.

      As I said.

      2. Your whole site is negatively inclined, in that you tend to criticise a whole multitude of those who you disagree with; but you do not express positvely and concisely what YOU are about. One has to glean it through acres of negative verbiage.

      You come here saying the site is negative. Have you been positive in saying it? You don't comprehend what is truly negative and/or positive. What I'm doing is positive. Working to open people's hearts is not negative. Working to help the people to see that they are following the wrong leadership is positive. It is a good thing. You would have been an unrepentant Pharisee at best.

      3. Your conclusions inevitably seem to bring you to criticising your own country and its allies whilst minimising your country's enemies' faults. With your knowledge of the Bible you would surely know how we are exhorted to respect the authorities placed over us. Of course, these authorities are wrong sometimes, just as all of us are wrong sometimes; but there is no sign that you are reluctant or restrained in criticising; indeed, you seem to relish every opportunity. I would prefer to see a deep reluctance to criticise and the use of humble and more measured terms. The Bible exhorts us to think of others as better than ourselves. That would presumably include you and me as well as Bush or Blair. Lets not fall into the trap laid for those who would try to prove they are the better followers of Christ. Christ alone knows (stated reverently).

      Jesus did not respect Caiaphas. Jesus respected his and my Father who is God. Did Caiaphas show respect for God?

      And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: (James 2:3 KJVR)

      But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (James 2:9 KJVR)

      I do not relish criticizing for the sake of destroying but only to save.

      "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save" them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:56 KJVR)

      You, Nick, don't know me.

      Do you respect George W. Bush and Tony Blair who lied to cause the evil that is war? You have made your stand with them against me. Did God place George W. Bush into the Presidency, or was George tempted by the same one who tempted Jesus but George rather succumbed?

      How has George dealt with the poor?

      George cheated to get elected.

      What do you really seek that you want me to stifle myself? What do you seek to keep hidden and in the dark?

      Who placed George over me? He is not and never has been over me. Did his authority come from above? Yes, but there is still the Old Heaven dying — thrashing around doing damage. There is still a battle raging between the light and dark. Was Pilate really over Jesus? Not in my eyes he wasn't!

      You hate the strong taste of my salt.

      "Salt" is "good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. " (Mark 9:50 KJVR)

      You seek to dilute the message.

      "No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth" it "under a bed; but setteth" it "on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light." (Luke 8:16 KJVR)

      How do you think that I could have arrived at all these things without that I had been severely rebuked and humbled by God? Think, man.

      "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." (Luke 18:17 KJVR)

      The Bible does not exhort us to think of others as better than ourselves in the sense you are suggesting — in the sense that is consistent with your twisted version of the message.

      "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed" the righteousness "of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20 KJVR)

      Then said Jesus unto his disciples, "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:23 KJVR)

      You must know what is righteous and do it to be sure to exceed the scribes and Pharisees. You must know what mammon is to be sure to exceed those rich in mammon. However, do you really believe that I don't know the meaning of the following:

      "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men" are, "extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as" his "eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified" rather "than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

      (Luke 18:10-14 KJVR)

      You haven't left a comment glorifying my work. You claim I'm exalting myself. You claim I lack humility. That's the same thing they said about Jesus and for exactly the same reason.

      The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

      (John 10:33 KJVR)