Mainstream on Maniac: "Qaddaffi forces mass as world raises pressure on Libya"

"...young people were given drugs by al Qaeda and therefore took to the streets." How can anyone in his/her right mind support a person who contends that, that is the answer as to why street protests started? What proof does Qaddaffi have for making such a statement?

Has absolutely no one taken even one drug? Who knows? Are there any "al Qaeda" types in Libya? With some 6 million people, it would seem highly unlikely that not one Libyan agrees with much of what Ayman al-Zawahiri preaches.

Changing the subject a bit, there is nothing wrong with the US Sixth Fleet moving close to Libya for humanitarian reasons. However, if it's about oil in terms of capitalism, then it's the wrong motivation and bodes ill.

It can be also about oil, in that a complete and instant cutoff would hurt many people, even though we really do need to get a handle on the Greenhouse Effect that is very, very real and dangerous — despite the ludicrous assertions of Koch Brother and Exxon sycophants and minions, etc.

To save "socialism" in Libya, Hugo Chavez wants an international mediation to save Qaddaffi. Qaddaffi could have averted all of what is going on by having established democratic socialism subject to losing in what are commonly understood to be free and fair elections. Socialism by force is not much better than capitalism by force.

To the knee-jerk capitalists who call me "scum" for having such feelings, I suggest to them that giving and sharing is better than being self-centered and such self-centeredness does lie at the core of capitalism, regardless of whether some who practice capitalism run a bit contrary to that by giving away a percentage — often to entities that simply further capitalism though rather than giving and sharing for its own sake that is righteousness.

I don't advocate falling short. I say to everyone that if you are bound and determined not to accept the non-coercive giving and sharing economy of Heaven, then the least you can do is give and share as much as otherwise possible while avoiding as much violence as possible. Therefore, it there is to be violence (there doesn't have to be; but regardless, Qaddaffi started it), let it be for giving and sharing and not for greed. If there are to be taxes, soak the rich. Never tax the poor to give to the rich. The rich are not the source of bounty. The idea that the rich are the source is false propaganda promoted by the rich for the rich. Any failures of socialism in terms of suggesting that giving and sharing as the prime impetus is the reason for failure is flat wrong. The idea that creativity can only come out from selfish motivations is wrong. There really is such a thing as altruistic creativity. It is the best kind. The very best inventions have been based upon the altruistic spirit. Those invention always do the greatest good while doing the least harm. The net benefits are always greater. Unlike with the capitalist ideology, the means are never on the path to nihilism.

Coercion is a fundamental problem in the human condition and psyche. We need universal repentance, but I can't find people who can accept it consistently. If it isn't one thing about that they reject, it's another.

"Revolutions in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt have helped to ignite resentment of four decades of often bloody political repression under Qaddaffi and his failure to use Libya's oil wealth to tackle widespread poverty and lack of opportunity." He is credited by many for having used oil money for general social services and the like better than the vast majority of "oil" nations, but criticism of him for lavishing his family and himself are absolutely legitimate. So long as there is one Libyan in poverty, Qaddaffi and his children have had no business whatsoever living in luxury off Libya's oil.

Yahoo News disappears into archives, so forgive me when the link goes dead. You know, they have to archive so they (capitalists) can charge you to see the past — just one of the evils of capitalism.

Qaddaffi forces mass as world raises pressure on Libya - Yahoo! News.

Donate


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.