Tom Usher wrote or added | "... with an ongoing modernisation plan that will see all legacy aircraft types replaced by modern and much longer ranging replacements, the PLAAF will in numerical terms become the strongest air force in Asia, with the largest fleet of 'tier one' fighter aircraft globally, should the United States pursue its current plan to downsize and reduce the capabilities of its tactical air forces."
If we don't work on peace, not only will huge quantities of resources be literally wasted on unproductive (dead end) weaponry, we can look forward to the next major war or WWIII (hot war between major powers). The current course of the world's powers is plain stupid.
The US got the Chinese to turn to a high-bred economy, a mix of market socialism and a social market economy (with some early aspects of Wild West libertarianism that is being reined in). They haven't made up their minds exactly; but one thing is for sure, they are still dominated by a one-party dictatorship that does not guarantee the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. We American's were promised back when that if we engage the Chinese on this "capitalistic" plane of market economics that the Chinese middle class would bring in American style democracy. What's changed since the Tiananmen Square Massacre in this regard? The Chinese middle class has not been openly clamoring for a multi-party democracy or the political rights that need to accompany that. In fact, the US itself has been going in the wrong direction by making third-party entries much more difficult.
This article is a Military Industrial Complex advertisement calling for the US to up the costs for China just as it did for the Soviets. One problem with that is that China is vastly richer than was the Soviet Union because US and other outside-China investors have plowed so much money into China. China is not on the same brink as was Russia, although it does face huge problems on nearly all fronts that often go ignored for the very reason of outside investment. Speaking the truth about China's rush to the American Dream would burst the various bubbles before the plutocrats are ready for the mainstream to know — when it's too late for the little fry and when those plutocrats have already made off as the bandits they are, just the way they made off with hundreds of billions of American-taxpayer dollars.
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)