US v. Russia, Video Interview/Debate, Robert Freedman, Oksana Boyko

Video description:

The US has a disastrous history of intervention in foreign conflicts, and as the Obama administration tries to disengage, it leaves behind the chaos of poorly thought out foreign policies. Is the US ideology-driven approach the reason for its failures overseas? And what are the prospects for cooperation between Russia and the US in an environment of growing Russophobia and anti-Americanism? Oksana is joined by Dr Robert Freedman, Visiting Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, to engage these issues.

Some quick thoughts:

Tom1

Tom Usher

I was wondering if Georgia would ever even come up. Georgia was the tipping point. What about the anti-missile system to be placed in Poland? Then there were all the cases of Western spies in Russia. Yes, Russian spies were caught in the US but afterwards. Plus, the US renounced the no-first-strike principle concerning nuclear weapons. The US didn't bother with UN approval for going into Iraq and on known false pretenses -- a polite way of saying a pack of lies. The list goes on and on and on. NATO expanded right to Russia's border after the US had promised it would not do that. Where does it end?

It ends with the US as global empire or fallen, unless the American people wake up and stand up to the imperialists neocons and so-called "liberal interventionists" to say to them: "No more of your insane, baseless military adventures. No more of your wicked espionage. No more of your undermining the common people of other countries in favor of greedy elitists there who will do the super-rich plutocrats' bidding."

Let's not forget the American homosexualists' agenda either, which Putin has made clear he won't stand for in Russia. That's a bigger deal than most people realize. He knows there's a clear connection, a slippery slope, that he does not want Russia sliding down. The Russian people back him on that, and the power elite in the US can't stand it because they are decadent and Putin knows it. He's trying to clean up Russia for the sake of its future, its children, while the US turns into a cesspool build upon false propaganda spewed by stealthy predators.

Donate


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.