I posted a comment on a YouTube video, which comment seems to be appreciated there. So here's the video's description followed by the video and then my comment:
The world’s powers have become accustomed to dealing with each other in terms of hard power, using economic, political and military means to promote their interests. But it risks undercutting their ability to co-opt rather than coerce. How can nations be smart about leveraging their soft and hard power, and how can these power dynamics be managed as global power diffuses from West to East? Oksana is joined by Joseph Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and pioneer of the concept of soft power, to address these issues.
Russian soldiers fighting in foreign war zones under Russian command do not carry passports into battle.
The Crimeans are predominately ethnic Russians who were calling for joining Russia before any "men in green uniforms" even showed up, which men, both the Crimeans and Russians say were Crimeans, though Russian military was certainly in Crimea, as Russia had military installations there all along.
Actually, Russia is even more popular now with much of the world that has been seeing the US as striving for world domination. Russia and China have grown closer, and the European nations, starting with the UK, have flocked to China's new banking plan for Asian development and done so directly against US requests that they not do that.
Furthermore, Germany and France have gone out of their way to cut a ceasefire deal between Kiev and Donbass, which US neocons have been trying to sabotage.
Where's the discussion about the unconstitutional, violent coup in Ukraine where the muscle came primarily from fascists? Where's the discussion about removing Russian as one of the official languages of the nation? Where's the discussion about outlawing the Communists in Ukraine? What kind of democracy is that? Where's the reminder that the Bandera worshipers burned alive anti-Maidan people in Odessa? Where's the discussion about the Ukrainian Prime Minister calling Russians "subhumans"? What about his referring to the Russian invasion of Germany, as if Germany hadn't been responsible for invading Russia in direct violation of the agreement between Germany and Russia at the time? What about Kiev shelling the cities and towns in Donbass? What about NATO expansion after the Reagan administration had assured Gorbachev that such expansion would never happen? What about the US sending Georgia into South Ossetia, etc.? What about the US violating the Anti-ABM Treaty? What about the US trying to deflect attention away from the global mass-surveillance system the US has aimed in every direction, including directly at Angela Merkel, a close NATO ally? What about the neoliberal economics spearheaded via US dominated institutions, such as the World Bank, which has literally economically raped nations for the sake of the ultra-rich of the US? What about the lies and false pretexts used by the US to invade Iraq? Who's more credible, Putin or Obama?
Obama lied to the world that the US wasn't spying the way it has been, including lying directly to the American people about that the NSA dragnet spies on all of them and retains the content for later searching.
Right now, Poroshenko is violating the ceasefire. Rather than hearing that in the Western media, we hear that Putin is breaking the ceasefire.
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)