The United States, without a shadow of a doubt, deployed its troops in Grenada, having said that there was a threat to American citizens there. In addition, not that long ago, America said that the use of the army against one's own people was illegal. The US wanted to invade Syria for that reason, where Assad "was using the army against his people."
As for Ukraine, the USA, of course, does not see any parallels, just as it was with Kosovo and the Crimea. According to the United States, the separation of Kosovo did not violate international law, although the rest of the country was against it."
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov explained in one of his recent interviews, in which case Russian troops could be deployed in Ukraine. "The deployment of troops can be carried out in case of direct infringement of the interests of Russia and Russian citizens," the minister said. In a nutshell, "If we are attacked, naturally, we will defend ourselves." According to Lavrov, "aggression against Russian citizens would be considered an attack against Russia."
No matter how many foreign warships there are in the Black Sea, one single volley from them will mean retaliation that will instantly escalate to war between Russia, the United States or NATO. Such a war is likely to be global and nuclear. Is Obama ready to sacrifice American cities for Ukraine? Is NATO ready to burn millions of its citizens for the glory of Kiev? Of course not.
Russia has also made very clear that if ethnic Russians are attacked in Ukraine, Russia will step in militarily. The question isn't whether but just how much ethnic Russians in Ukraine will have to endure before direct Russian military intervention. I believe Russia is making it very clear that it won't stand for much more from Kiev (the United State's handpicked government there; its proxy).
Mr. Putin won't allow the many fascists in Western Ukraine to have the upper hand over Russian ethnics in Eastern Ukraine, and there's nothing the US can do to stop him regardless of what John McCain or others think to the contrary unless the US wants to risk Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) via global, thermonuclear exchange that will quickly render the planet all but uninhabitable for human beings.
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)