...what happened to MH17....
Number one is why Kiev Air Traffic Control, a part of the Ukraine Ministry of Aviation, ordered the MH17 to deviate from its scheduled route that avoided the war zone in eastern Ukraine? According to the initial reports of FlightAware.com which tracks all civilian aircraft online, on Thursday, July 17 Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 Flight MH17 from Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport to Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, deviated significantly in altitude and route from all other commercial flights, which since the outbreak of the civil war in eastern Ukraine in April have flown south of the conflict region. The key questions before giving blame to anyone, which have been completely ignored by the Ukrainian government in Kiev, by the Obama Administration in Washington, by most Western media, are why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan? Why did he fly above restricted airspace? And just what, if any instructions, did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic explosion?
Curiously, after the FlightAware data was initially published, the site changed its version of the trajectory of MH17. Were they pressured to do so?
Ukrainian intelligence presented what it alleged were recorded conversations between a pro-Russian separatist and his coordinator Vasyl Geranin, said to be a Colonel of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. They talk about the “downing of a jet.” There is no distinction whether this is a civilian or a military jet, and may well refer to a Ukrainian Su-25 which was shot down some hours earlier in the civil war fighting.
In the YouTube video there is no way to prove the audio was not simply two actors in a studio reading a script given them. The entire Kiev “smoking gun” video vanished from the media when diligent IT researchers discovered the time/date stamp showed the video was put online on 2014-07-16 at 19:10 Kiev time, a full day BEFORE the downing of MH17.
The burning question is why has the US Government not released the exact tracking images for flight MH17 on July 17 to show precisely when it flew and from precisely where it was hit? Could it be they are afraid to reveal what they have for fear it would boomerang on Washington’s war hawks?
Not only do the US agencies have satellite data on the MH17 flight, they also have precise images of the likely rocket missile battery that fired the missile that destroyed MH17.
The official propaganda war against Russia on the MH17 downing is being run, just as was the Maidan Square coup, by a cabal of neoconservatives in the US State Department. Victoria Nuland’s Deputy Press Spokesperson, a former CIA press spokesperson, Marie Harf, in a July 21 Washington press briefing, faced unusually persistent and critical questions from several journalists. They asked why, if Secretary John Kerry and the US Government possessed “irrefutable” evidence of Russian and rebel involvement in MH17, they are refusing to make it public as the US did in earlier instances such as the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis.
Defensive and irritated by the questions, Harf retorted, referring to July 20 statements by Kerry she declared, “our assessment that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory.” But, incredibly, what was the proof the journalists were demanding? Harf replied, “that we know – we saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft…”
With Russian government and military intelligence releasing more of its own evidence, the Obama Administration has gone into a frantic “damage control” mode. At 5:57pm Washington time on July 22, they decided to organize an anonymous press briefing by “unnamed senior officials.” “Unnamed senior officials” usually refers to very high level cabinet or assistant secretary level officials.
Looking like goofy characters in a bad remake of a Hollywood Laurel & Hardy film, the “senior” US intelligence officials, when asked for details on their evidence, repeated the State Department mantra of Marie Harf. The intelligence “seniors” had the chutzpah to state that they were, “relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government,” even though they openly admitted that they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile. But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be.
That last bit of the press briefing is astonishing because it meant that some briefing officer, perhaps CIA or State Department, briefed the President of the United States (who presumably has little time to do his own investigations…) who then went on nationwide TV on July 21 to charge that the Malaysia Airlines plane, "was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine." He also said Russia has both trained the separatists and "armed them with military equipment and weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons." That speech brought the entire world one giant step closer to a Cold War with Russia that easily could become a hot war. A day later, somebody very senior inside the US Administration apparently decided to de-escalate the confrontation massively.
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)