Two years ago, true peace makers were dismayed to learn that Barack Obama was named the 2009 peace prize winner. Giddy at the site of a black man becoming president of the United States, the prize nominators lost any collective wisdom they may have had and awarded the prize for peace to the man who oversees a war machine larger than that of the rest of the nations of the world combined and he has subsequently proven that he has no qualms about utilizing it.
I largely agree with the article and with Eileen Fleming's comments there. I would be surprised to discover anyone who knows more about Mordechai Vanunu than Eileen does.
I'm commenting though to reemphasize the fact that Gaddafi (Qaddaffi; his spelling) did not have to react to the unarmed demonstrators the way he did. He could have chosen to reform in peace. I believe the Libyans would have accepted a genuine effort if it had been coupled with real contrition.
Let me make clear, even though I already said I largely agree with the article, I do not support Barack Obama or NATO bombings, etc.
I understand the ostensible reason for the "Responsibility to Protect" principle at the United Nations Security Council. It is ostensible because it is never applied consistently regardless of whether militants or peaceful protesters involved on either side are US "allies" or not. Only US imperialism ever controls such decisions.
Even though I believe Obama really did not want to see Qaddaffi going house to house, as Qaddaffi pledged, I still know for sure that Obama made his decision to supply "air support" and then more so support the UK and France in their direct air assaults, based upon what Barack Obama was led to believe was/is in the best interest of US imperialism. I do though believe he was reluctant for weeks. He had to be convinced that doing nothing would have been worse.
He didn't have to do nothing though even while he didn't have to do what he did. There were other ways of approaching the situation. Qaddaffi was all ears for a bit concerning Obama.
Qaddaffi was looking for an out, just as he was convince by his son to look for an out when Libya was named as next in line after the "Axis of Evil" by George W. Bush. John Bolton said as much. Qaddaffi's son saw the hand writing on the wall and convinced his father to rush to appease the "West," which he did in many ways.
I'm not suggesting that Qaddaffi should have been left in power. I'm suggesting that there were peaceful ways to resolve the whole thing had great leadership stepped forward to defuse the situation and manage the reform process with a win-win goal.
It's high time the global leadership start applying mercy, forgiveness, and repentance all the way around. It's the only hope for this planet of Homo sapiens (a severe misnomer if we don't start acting truly wise).
I do not agree with how Saddam Hussein was tried and executed under Bush. I don't agree with how Obama has handled Osama bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, I basically disagree with Barack Obama on all of his foreign policy and the vast majority of his domestic policy as well.
The idea of making the world safe for democracy rings hollow when the US itself is busy trampling all over the US Bill of Rights right here in the US, as is the case daily now concerning the ows (Occupy Wall Street) Movement.
I could go on and on here, but I think this is sufficient for right now. Qaddaffi was in error the way he handled Libya. He did some things right to a degree, but that in no way excuses the myriad things he did that were clearly wrong even to him in his heart of hearts, I'm sure.
Contrary to statements by many who have addressed me on the subject, there was poverty in Libya while Qaddaffi and his family lived as multi-billionaires (total excess). It didn't have to be that way. There was enough oil money such that no one should have been living in poverty, and Qaddaffi should have lived no more luxuriously than the worst off citizen in Libya (if he had been a truly great man).
Yes, the standard is high, but I'm sick of everyone setting low standards. I'm sick of living surrounded by such abjectly low standards. I look forward to Heaven, where the standards are the highest and everyone is expected to live them. God knows (truly) I want to have to live up to something, not spend my life warding off evil.
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)