US Vice President Joe Biden happily declared to business leaders and students at Moscow State University that only 2 percent of Americans see Russia as a threat – however that percentage includes top US intelligence officers.
"The reset is working," claimed Biden.
However, US intelligence officer James Clapper recently told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the gravest threats against America are China and Russia.
Source: US and Russia: Cold War redux? — RT.
There's a video on that post as well, of course (being a "TV" blog).
James Clapper's statements were mischaracterized. He clearly said that he didn't think Russia has intentions to use nuclear capability against the US. Although I'm sure he understands that Russia has made clear within the last couple of years that until Russia develops other means, it would be forced to use its nuclear capability against the US were Russia under an existential attack from the US. That would be Russia doing a first-strike against the US where nuclear weapons are concerned. One may certainly argue over what might be behind the ratcheting up of tensions leading to shooting and then a nuclear exchange, but the issue of "threat" is still there. That's why disarmament is so important.
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at The Independent Institute (very Libertarian Capitalist in out look that typically includes a strong anti-interventionist, albeit it not isolationist, anti-war component) made a solid point when he mentioned how Russia and China are singled out even though there are other nuclear-weapons nations, including not only England, France, Pakistan, India, but also Israel, etc., but the "threat" is discussed in terms of Russia and China (obviously for reasons of Empire).
That Israel was mentioned is important in that many Zionists are constantly suspicious about which power will use the issue of Israel versus its Arab neighbors in anti-Zionist ways. Until it reneged last year for whatever reason, Russia had been offering Iran state-of-the-art anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems. Israel has been saber rattling about Iran for decades now. This is why the Cold War hasn't gone away, not simply because there are still older people in the world. Don't kid yourself. Young Zionists are steeped in Masada-type thinking.
Let's not forget that the Georgian War wasn't that long ago (Bush-43 Administration). Mind you, it was the West, most notably Israel through military equipment and advice to Georgia, that set off the problem. Keep in mind also that the central issue in terms of Empire concerns raw materials such as oil. Oil pipelines running in the area and who controls the sources of oil and other "strategic" resources is at the heart of most of the conflicts. It always boils down to money, which translates into wealth, power, and control, in other words, apostate selfishness and ego.
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)