So, Jared Kushner wanted a back channel to the Russian leadership. First of all, what's wrong with that? Second of all, there wasn't one or he wouldn't have been asking to establish one. When did he ask and why? I would have done exactly the same thing. Don't speculate as if your stated speculations are stating proven facts rather than unsubstantiated speculations.
Russia did not invade Crimea. Russia already had a large Naval base there. The Crimean People are overwhelmingly ethnic Russians. Elements in Kiev vowed to severely oppress all things Russian. They outlawed political parties that are still legal here in the US. They removed Russian as a language and moved in the direction of even banning it. Ukrainian neo-Nazis savagely attacked and murdered trade unionists in Odessa. Kiev did nothing! The constitution of Ukraine was trashed more than ever with the direct funding of the US neocons running the so-called government of the US. The Crimeans pleaded with Putin to protect them from obvious fascists and neoliberals in Kiev. The Crimeans wanted to have a free and fair vote on leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia. They did that very thing.
Ukraine was given away (to a degree) by Nikita Khrushchev when I was just a small boy. He never thought the USSR would disintegrate. He never thought the US would promise not to expand NATO if the USSR and Warsaw Pac would disband. The USSR did disband. The neoliberals (under George H.W. Bush) rushed into Russia to institute laissez-faire capitalism, which utterly ruined what was left of the Russian economy. Millions died as a result. Russia went into an economic depression that made the US Great Depression look like a picnic. NATO (primarily under Bill Clinton) enlarged exactly where the US said it would not.
Russophobia is hypnosis. You are to not only suspend belief, you are to accept whatever the neocons tell you. The neocons are the greatest practitioners of the Big-Lie tactic on the face of the Earth! It's a central tenant of their ideology. Here's that tenant in plain language: What those we dupe don't know and will refuse to find out will benefit us and to Hell with them, as they're not part of the "tribe" (literally). You're not supposed to say "tribe," as that will be labeled "anti-Semitic" even though plenty of Semites, plenty of Jews, don't like neoconservatism or Likudnik-Zionism, or Russophobia. You're supposed to cower instead, afraid that even though you know that neoconservatism is headed up by former Trotskyist Jews, there are way too many stupid, cowering people who will point the finger at you. It won't matter that you're 100% anti-racism and 100% against ethnic bigotry and are fine with Jews living in the US or anywhere else provided they aren't stealing other people's land while claiming the Bible as their deed to the land.
The President of the US would be highly remiss were he or she not to inform nations flying commercial jets, including with American citizens often on board (even neocons), of terrorist tactics to down such planes killing hundreds and perhaps thousands in multiple such attacks.
Claiming that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian hacker (operating under any orders flowing from Vladimir Putin or Putin's government) is just a post-hypnotic suggestion. If you suck it up without even questioning it, you're a somnambulant (easy mark for the neocon false-propagandists; better wake up; better snap out of it).
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)