Ukraine chief of staff ‘thwarts Western allegations’ by admitting no combat with Russian troops — RT News states the news that broke two days ago and concerning which I briefly commented in social media. I want to focus attention though on Barack Obama concerning this.
First, "Chief of the General Staff – Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – Viktor Muzhenko officially acknowledged during a briefing for foreign military attachées that Russian troops are not involved in the fighting in the country's southeast." The Kiev General was referring to regular Russian military troops operating under Russian command. Russia has all along openly stated that Russian men, including soldiers, have volunteered to fight in Donbass for the DPR and not as ordered to by Russia or even as volunteers called by the Russian military to do so.
The article mentions some weasel words of Sergey Galushko claiming in a mad-scramble damage-control statement that the alleged Russian troops are in a “second echelon.” Well, we are supposed to believe that some 9,000 Russian regulars are fighting in Donbass but not on the frontline and not in Russian uniforms with Russian insignias, etc. However, note the following very carefully:
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said it has not registered any movement of military vehicles at the Russia-Ukraine border checkpoints it observes, according to a statement made on January 22.
We were told that both troops and heavy weapons rolled across the border after the onset of the recent counter-attacks by the DPR Army.
Now, if the equipment didn't move, then why are we supposed to believe the Russian troops did? If they lied about the equipment, then they've perjured themselves. They've born false witness to the world, and Barack Obama is the biggest offender in it.
Barack Obama stated emphatically words in direct support of Poroshenko's claims about Russian troops and equipment pouring into Donbass. Obama made zero qualifying statements to cast any doubt on Poroshenko's completely unsubstantiated claims (at least half of which is shown by the OSCE to be a flat-out lie).
Look, Barack Obama has been engaging in the Big Lie tactic: repeating a falsehood so often that even with others attempting to counter it, it catches on with the dupes and minions and is accepted by the masses as truth. It's manufactured consent based upon pure lies, just as with George W. Bush's use of the fake yellow cake memo to get the American public to swing to supporting invading Iraq.
Obama had been trying to use the same tactic concerning Iran's nuclear program, but after being hammered about it in social media from people such as yours truly, he finally saw the light and distanced himself from the die-hard Big Lie employer, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Well, Obama is going to have to be pressed on the Big Lies being employed concerning Ukraine.
The truth of the matter is that this whole Ukraine problem is completely the cause of the greed of Western plutocrats who want global control so they may have all the more private wealth, power, and control and to hell with the masses (who are only there to serve those plutocrat masters).
You may find that a stretch, but that would be because you don't understand the nature of the "democracy" we are suffering under. It is a controlled democracy. The plutocrats have assumed control and only allow to happen what they want to happen within a very narrow range of possibilities, including real democracy. The plutocrats, via their corporations and such, flood politics with money and favors to the point where nobody really rises beyond a certain point without acquiescing to the plutocrats plan for the world.
Since the 1970's especially, the plutocrats have clamped down more and more in this regard to the point where now, it would take a revolution to dislodge them. Reform from within via the typical US election will not get them out. This is because politicians cannot stand up telling the unvarnished and whole truth and survive the onslaught and censorship and false counter-claims accompanied by more money and promises and deals made with corrupt politicians.
This does not mean that all is hopeless or that violent revolution is the only way. What it does mean is that you have to stop ostensibly ignoring what I'm saying but rather openly support it and spread it. More than anything, that's what Obama's handlers don't want. If you cave in to them because you are afraid of the evil they will do to you, they'll have you. You'll have lost your soul. That's what they're counting on.
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)