Excerpts: Novorossian Herald, No. 2, December 2014 | Novorossia Today



The first important principle is a foundation of a new State and by the word Novorossiya we mean big Novorossiya.

This hidden conflict has been ripening for 23 years. The Maidan and the so called revolution of the dignity were its markers. Novorossiya will never be Ukraine anymore. We are too different and what is the most important blood has been spilled. We will not live in the same country with people who profess the Bandera ideology and killed our friends and family. Although it was external forces that were controlling this process, leaning on the Nazi and Bandera ideological component, Banderovites, that have established their authority and have support on the West-Ukrainian territory; it was there where the main social base of Maidan was. The Bandera ideas became the ideological component of modern Ukraine almost from the very first days of its existence and Bandera followers were the driving force of it. (P. 8)


Unlike the West and the center, the East of Ukraine has always been its most industrial part. Since the Russian Empire conquered and then developed the region people there have been working in big teams and, speaking of plants and mines, in really dangerous conditions. They have never possessed rural selfishness; moreover, mutual support has always been a vital part of their life. It has always been much easier for them to join together to stand up for their rights because they have always shared the whole life, both working and living side-by-side, and taken their fellow blue-collar workers as close as family members.

Perhaps, that was a reason for the East of then Malorossiya to take to socialistic ideas of the Russian revolution with such readiness and even eagerness. As proletarians they didn’t have any private property to have to give up on, working together was usual for them and their understanding injustice of a few enjoying all the results of work of many was based on daily virtually killing labor and ran deep indeed. So, how could they not be attracted to the idea of working together for the common good and dividing the profits of it fairly and equally? (P. 17)


How the state of Ukraine “guarantees that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind” is especially clearly seen in the sphere of “language, religion, political or other opinion”. The Russian language is banned from schools, universities and all office work. Churches that are under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchy are seized and passed to the jurisdiction of the Kiev Patriarchy. People speaking about the necessity of holding a referendum on federalization of the country are arrested and indicted under the article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Encroachment upon the territorial integrity of the country”. (P. 25 )


What does the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have to say about it?

Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, any group or any person has the right to engage in any activity or to perform any kind of act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized in the present Covenant, or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

Having started the anti-terroristic operation the state of Ukraine engaged precisely in the activity and performed precisely the acts “aimed at the destruction” of the right of the Donbass’s people as “a historic community of persons” to self-determination and their freedom to teach their children in their Mother tongue and bring them up within their native culture “willingly and naturally accepted by all”. (P. 27)

Novorossiya is the Russian world’s awakening everywhere: in Baltic countries and Moldova, in ex- Ukraine and even in Russia itself where a lot of people are still under a deep post-soviet sleep.

The idea of the future Eurasian Union is even wider and more varied, more radical and massive; it is a union of free nations against American globalization and it’s not just Slavic nations but also Turkic, Caucasian… It’s the great nations’ awakening against NATO and dollar occupation, an active protection and an offensive of Eurasian nations against the world’s evil’s forces. It may be the last and great battle for the establishment of the multipolar world where India, China, Turkic world and Europe awakening and, in future, free of the USA’s dictate will be our allies. This is a union with revolutionary Latin America and, in the long run, a battle for liberty of the American nation itself. (P. 33)


Tom Usher

Download the whole thing: http://novorossia.today/wp-content/uploads/nh/nh2.pdf

Novorossian Herald | Novorossia Today.


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.