In Brussels, Obama calls Crimea crisis a contest of ideas -

What in the world is he talking about?

The president [Obama] also addressed Putin's complaint that the U.S. was hypocritical to condemn his actions in Crimea when it had invaded Iraq. In a politically strange turn, Obama, whose rise in national politics was fueled by his opposition to that war, used the still-unstable country to defend U.S. moral authority. The U.S. sought to work within the international system, he said.

"We did not claim or annex Iraq's territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future," Obama said.

Source: In Brussels, Obama calls Crimea crisis a contest of ideas -

Mr. Putin also mentioned Kosovo. Regardless, Barack Obama must have been asleep when the George W. Bush administration bugged the UN, refused to listen to America's main allies against prematurely ending the weapons inspections, and refused to listen to the weapons inspectors saying that Iraq had no WMD (which it didn't). In addition, US oil corporations have numerous contracts in Iraq that they would not have had Bush and Cheney not invaded. Lastly and most importantly regarding Mr. Putin's position, the Iraqis did not conduct a referendum as to whether it wanted the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Of course, under Saddam Hussein, no such vote would have been allowed. If it had been though, the Iraqis would not have voted for invasion and occupation. The Crimeans though had an 83% voter turnout where 97% voted to join Russia. The analogy concerning Kosovo is more than apt.

There are some, such as Ilya Somin, who seem to falsely imagine that the Russians in Crimea would have had to be under huge Ukrainian persecution before those Russians would have the right to leave Ukraine to be joined to Russia (after an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine against Russian interests). He also claims that Russia's human rights violations are reason to disallow the annexation, as if Vladimir Putin is going to mistreat the Crimeans joining Russia of their own expressed desire. The twisted logic is astounding. He claims the 97% vote was "likely tainted by fraud and intimidation." Oh, that's a fact upon which to base a decision is it? It is not. It is nothing more than planting unsubstantiated seeds. As for the Crimean Russians having been under no threat of violence, one need only listen to the words of former Ukrainian PM Yulia Tymoshenko concerning Russians (pro-Russia, pro-Putin Russians). Don't kid yourself either that she has no power anymore or that no others there with power agree with her anti-Russian views.

She's talking about using nuclear weapons on 8 million of them. It doesn't matter that the West is trying to spin her later statements about that conversation. She admitted having it. She admitted the obscenities. Are you going to trust her and her people concerning how to treat Russians. Should Vladimir Putin have waited until after Russians were killed for being pro-Russia, etc.?

Honestly, Kiev is where the Rus were first notably established. It's the cradle of the Russian people's civilization. People such as Barack Obama act as if that doesn't matter much at all. Russia is still right there, right next door. It's not as if there's an ocean separating the two nation-states.

It is also ridiculous to bring up Stalinism in the same breath as Putin. Putin is not a Stalinist. Neither is he a Trotskyist. He's a market, mixed-economy, Orthodox Christian who believes Moscow is the Third Rome. It's not farfetched. If one looks at what happened to Rome and then Constantinople, there's a good case for Moscow's resurgence as that "Third Rome" now again.

Lastly, why did Vladimir say that the fall of the USSR was a huge mistake? Why doesn't someone in the West ask him? I suspect he wasn't referring to a desire to have maintained an authoritarian empire but rather anti-US imperialism for one. Look what happened as a result of Yeltsin? Putin has been digging out ever since and hasn't even come half way back to where Russia could have been in a post-authoritarian empire had the West not sat on its hands relishing the Russian people's plight (lack of market discipline and systems).

Vladimir Putin is not intending to build up a military machine so he can roll through Europe a la Adolf Hitler. Anyone who thinks that's Putin is a numbskull. What he wants is a strong, prosperous, healthy Russia that isn't pushed around but is a partner in developmental and other projects. It's really a shame that he doesn't have a counterpart in the US Presidency.

Look, if the right choices where made right now, the whole Crimean thing would end up moot.

I'm afraid that the US has gone too far down the moral relativism route though to suit Russia. It's the inevitable result of the selfishness inherent in so much capitalism for so long. It's bad training, bad upbringing.

See also: Is Crimea's Shift the First of a Long Series ? | "Before our eyes"


Tom Usher


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.
    • JohnStefanyszyn

      Freedom...the Ideal...Obama's Conception of Perfection

      (ref. President Obama's Brussel's Speech, March 26,2014)

      ...the belief that, through conscience (one's self-moral sense of right and wrong / of knowing "good and evil") and free will, each (the self) has the right to live as one chooses

      ...the belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed

      ...that the belief in equal self-rights for every man and women is the simple (unique/one) truth

      ...He states that this "ideal" has often been threatened by an ancient view of power, in which men and women are required to surrender their rights to an all powerful sovereign.

      President Obama believes that man's future is in freedom. He affirms that this freedom ideal is the one universal truth.

      ...And he believes that each person is created with equal human rights,— no matter who they are or what they look like or whom each loves or where each comes from.

      This belief is the strength (the god of fortresses) of the USA and above all others.

      ...He believes that every peoples, society, nation must (be free) to chart its own course.

      ...He believes that this desire for freedom is the one irreducible truth within every human being.

      ...He believes in the struggle for freedom for self-rule / democracy

      ...He believes that this freedom has no bounds.

      ...He believes that this freedom will continue (will not die) to triumph over any sovereign, because that is what forever stirs in the human heart.

      To President Obama and to all that worship this "freedom"....I say this...It is Only the Lord and Sovereign Jesus Christ that will rule the earth in Power according to and in obedience to the Will of the One Creator, and NOT according to man's first love for his "freedom" to serve and magnify oneself (XES).

      ...and many will weep and will gnash their teeth in anger when their freedom will be no more.

      John Stefanyszyn

      ...a bondman of the One King Jesus Christ, Son of the Only God