Those who blindly stand on the slippery slope of cultural degradation and decadence seldom come to realize the state's position as rational that standing there be banned for the general welfare of an at-risk, naive, and gullible citizenry. "The state also argued that it has a "legitimate" interest in preserving the traditional family structure because it claims children thrive best when married moms and dads raise them." The state's position is correct for the short- and long-term health and wellbeing of both individuals and the whole. It is a societal trend deliberately created by false-propaganda not to be able to see that (brainwashing; more on this below).
What does this have to do with Crimea, Russia, and Vladimir Putin, et al.?
The neocons are out to get Mr. Putin. You may read about that here. The video in that article refers to a Zionist homosexual, Jamie Kirchick, who is clearly out to get Putin, to make Putin out to be the next new "Hitler." Forget that Mr. Putin kept the US out of war in Syria and likely Iran (so far). Of course, this is why the neocons and Zionists hate him. The homosexuals mostly wouldn't mind a violent regime change in Iran either. Also keep in mind that while Hitler was an ethnic bigot who espoused the superiority of Germanic/Teutonic DNA, we have been systematically subjected to decades of deliberate Zionist false-propaganda about Nazi history and intentions. Look, the Likudniks lied about Palestine, didn't they? Didn't they say Palestine was a land without a people while the Zionists destroyed some 700-800 Palestinian Arab villages so those Zionists could take the land? What makes you think they haven't grossly exaggerated about Hitler for the same reason: to dupe you into supporting them?
In a nutshell, the neocons favor a global revolution for a type of American capitalistic-democracy but of "necessity" in their view, financially, and hence politically, dominated by ethnic/cultural Jews. In a very real sense, they seek for the world that it be the proverbial Israel, the supposed safe haven for Jews.
The Zionists are a mixed bag ranging from Ultra-Orthodox Talmudic Jews, who adamantly oppose homosexuality, to hyper-secular, hedonistic Jews, who celebrate and openly promote homosexuality. A strong strain in Zionism has a long-term objective of fulfilling its interpretation of biblical prophecy that the Jews come to dominate the world with all other ethnicities being thoroughly enslaved under Judaism, waiting on the Jewish masters hand and foot while those Jews don't have to lift a finger.
The neocons are Zionists, but traditionally, they are social conservatives. The neocons outwardly stated goals do not jibe with the Talmudic fundamentalists of political-religious Zionism. Understand though that a basic tenet of neoconservatism is the esoteric. They don't feel obliged to inform others of their end goals. They consider most too unintelligent to appreciate the correctness of their goals. Frankly, it is an elitist view based upon tribal superiority and supremacism and is decidedly wickedly Machiavellian.
Generally, the homosexual movement also seeks a global revolution to cause homosexuality to be held on par with (or superior to) heterosexuality.
Consequently, neocons, Zionists, and homosexuals often are a chorus and bloc against Mr. Putin and others, such as Iran.
In Vladimir Putin's case, he is an ethnic Russian, not a Jew. This puts him at odds with non- or anti-Slavic tribes well beyond just the Jews. He is a professing Russian Orthodox Christian, which puts him at historical odds with the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations, especially those that are pro-Zionist for Christian-Zionist End-Times reasons, where all but the Jews who convert to Jesus are wiped out. He is also opposed to homosexuals propagandizing to children, which makes him the particular target of the homosexual movement of the US and Europe.
So, here we have domestic and foreign policies intertwining in the US. How should individuals and the various states in the US react?
Barack Obama, a lukewarm Zionist and avid pro-homosexual, is picking and choosing which laws he will "faithfully execute." This is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional: lawless. The US House of Representatives should have long since brought him up on charges, that is, impeached him for this alone.
As a consequence of Barack Obama's position and because if he may do it so too may the states, the states should consider simply refusing to honor what they consider unconstitutional "orders" of irrational federal judges hell bent upon destroying the natural order for the sakes of the disturbed who have grabbed ascendancy via false propaganda, particularly targeting the naive and gullible youth, and simply wearing down the opposition.
Is the US a federation or confederation? It remains to be seen. Frankly, the constantly changing borders of the world say that it is a confederation.
Vladimir Putin realizes most, if not all, of this. He is reacting accordingly. That linked article means that Russia too is having to form coalitions and blocs with those with whom it does not completely see eye-to-eye. Latin America though is well aware of the risks of US meddling and military interventions. It has been subjected to that for centuries. The US was responsible for the installation and support of numerous, terrible, right-wing dictators in Latin America who allowed American companies with the US government, which both bribed and threatened them, to ravage their nations for capitalistic profits flowing to American multimillionaires, now billionaires.
Understand that the US has some 800 military bases around the globe, many of which are strategically placed to surround Russia, not just to "contain" Russia but to encroach and encroach until Russia itself finally falls apart, to completely weaken it, so the US and EU can take away its nuclear and other weapons and its sovereignty. By contrast, Russia has few military bases outside its own territory.
You will notice from the article on The Hill that many in the US count Russia as anti-market oriented, which couldn't be further from the truth, and also count Latin America as if it's US territory, a la the passÃ© Monroe Doctrine, which it is not.
This link shows the manipulation, the propaganda, that has been used on the gullible and naive by the homosexual movement. Even the ostensibly open plan is loaded with the psychological manipulation of its own adherents. Notice that the movement's plan is to hide its side that wouldn't "sell" until the general population is desensitized to degradation, the slippery slope. It assumes that you will fall for the meme that homosexuals are "born that way," which is far from the norm if it happens at all. It also asserts the 10% figure (one out of ten is homosexual), which was not true and they knew it. They also knew full well that sexuality was fluid, not fixed. It also doesn't tell you that the Nazi Brown Shirts were headed by homosexuals. It's all one-sided and hyper-manipulative of the ignorant and impressionable. Did you fall for it?
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)