I have to admit that I believe the KGB-cum-FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) was behind false-flag attacks on Moscow apartments that were conducted as a pretext for Russia smashing the Chechen separatists.
Here's the Wikipedia on it:
Former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, along with a series of other authors such as Yury Felshtinsky, David Satter, Boris Kagarlitsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky, claimed in the early 2000s that the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya and boost former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's, then the prime minister, popularity in the lead-up to parliamentary elections and presidential transfer of power in Russia later that year.
Source: Federal Security Service Role in the Second Chechen War
I also should say that there is no doubt whatever that Vladimir Putin lives in the lap of ultra-luxury. Whether he technically (under the letter of Russian law) personally "owns" various of the many properties upon which he lives in Russia, etc. (other assets), is something I cannot now say. Barring Russia crashing or a severe regime change there, I believe he is going to live the rest of his life in opulence.
Those things said, I want to lay out the remainder of this post to say that allegations are one thing where substantiated facts are another.
Lastly by way of disclosure and brief introduction, I want to express again what I wrote in a previous post. I think Vladimir Putin has grown in office and literally saved Russia.
The neoconservatives in the US have been out to get Russia for decades now. They follow in a long line of ideologists who have sought the same and going back to even long before the Bolsheviks. It is well beyond the scope of this post to go into detail about that aspect.
The following, however, is a snippet that is the opening of the full Introduction of "Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?" by Karen Dawisha:
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
IN REACTING to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine in early 2014, the U.S. government announced an unprecedented response: not the Russian state but individual Russian citizens would be subjected to asset seizures and visa bans. The Sixth Fleet was not called into action; exports to Russia as a whole were not banned; cultural and educational exchanges were not stopped. Rather, individual elites close to “a senior Russian Government official”—Vladimir Putin—were targeted.
Probably the most serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War, and the White House targets individuals. Why this response? Because at last, after fourteen years of dealing with President Vladimir Putin as a legitimate head of state, the U.S. government has finally acknowledged publicly what successive administrations have known privately—that he has built a system based on massive predation on a level not seen in Russia since the tsars.
The entire Introduction is a scathing attack on Vladimir Putin, assigning to him the most selfish and personally greedy motives.
The reason I raise it is because the book is used by US neocons to trash Putin.
The book was rejected by its authors customary publisher. Here is the reason given by that publisher:
A defamatory statement—in this case, a potential libel—is a false statement that undermines the reputation of the person about whom the statement is made. In a court of law, the fact-finder cannot just accept the writer or publisher’s assertion that a statement is true. In England in particular, a libel claimant can require the writer and publisher to prove truth, which in the case of your book, would be extremely difficult to do for many of the claims you make.
Source: A book too far
That message was intended by the publisher to remain confidential. It goes on to do its best to butter Karen Dawisha: "We have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say...."
Well, I think the publisher made the right call in not publishing because Karen Dawisha doesn't couch her statements about Putin as being allegations or her suspicions but rather cold, hard facts, as if proven. Obviously, they were not proven or the publisher would have published the book. However, why did the publisher "have no reason to doubt the veracity of what" Karen Dawisha wrote about Putin and the others? Why even phrase it that way? Perhaps they meant the sincerity with which Ms. Dawisha holds her beliefs about Putin, et al.
Anyway, I then ran into this post: "Should I Waste My Time Reading Karen Dawisha’s “Putin’s Kleptocracy”?," by Natylie Baldwin, which I think state my thoughts on the matter.
There were indeed a few other causes for concern related to Ms. Dawisha’s overall credibility when I read her NYT piece. For example, in the fourth paragraph she states:
The market increasingly recognizes the risk of dealing with Russian companies, the largest of which is Gazprom. Despite having the world’s largest net profits, Gazprom was trading at one-third the stock market valuation of Exxon Mobil, due to what is widely regarded as rampant and Kremlin-directed corruption.
This allegation is particularly interesting when one considers that Transparency International’s most recent report states that Russian companies, Gazprom and Rosneft, scored higher than Exxon Mobil as well as Apple and Google, which are notorious for having poor scores. Furthermore, the report recognized a consistent upward trend in transparency and good corporate governance for the two Russian state-run fossil fuel companies. Is Transparency International a tool of the Kremlin now, Ms. Dawisha?
The whole article by Natylie Baldwin is worth the read.In the end though and as they say, you decide (for yourself).
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)