"London Occupy Activist [Josh] - Tahrir Inspired Everyone" 108morris108's Channel - YouTube

I found myself agreeing with everything this young man, Josh, said. However, I qualify that statement by explaining that I'm completely anti-militant. Josh said he is anti-war, but he didn't go as far as to say he is a pacifist. Perhaps he is.

I mention this all primarily because of his comments about Qaddaffi being "brilliant" before Saddam's downfall. The former regime was bad, but it is easy to be generous ("brilliant"?) with Libyan (other people's; the peoples') oil money. Josh strikes me as being highly intelligent enough that he might take my point and perhaps work with it. I am accustomed to being disappointed though; so if I were to put it to him, I wouldn't be holding my breath on that so to speak.

Morris was a huge Qaddaffi fan right up to the end and even after they killed Qaddaffi. I disagree with Morris about Qaddaffi, but I do think Morris does not want war anywhere and does want everyone to be treated humanely, etc., at least until it comes time for self-defense, which I'm confident to say (unfortunately) that Morris still believes in. Maybe he'll come to Christ. We'll see. I do wish him peace and blessings.

I particularly liked the way Josh understood that the Occupy Movement is not being allowed as a distraction. My understanding is that the powers that be are nervous about trying too hard to disallow the people to protest. After all, the more the various governments clamp down and the faster they do it, the more proof they provide the people who will then react more emphatically, including against funding the wars rather than social welfare or even outright socialism, taking down the whole private, commercial banking system.

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.
    • Anonymous

      Hey Tom,

      This is Josh from the video. First off, Thank-you for your kind words and I'm happy to clarify and more :) I explained that Gaddafi may have been brilliant in the beginning during the coup when he was a self declared Nasserist out to depose the despotic Libyan Monarchy. Make no qualms that he ruled with an Iron fist and slaughtered many innocent civilians before and during the uprising, but for a more in depth understanding of my opinion I would recommend my article 'The Libyan Quagmire" (google it).

      What hasn't sunk in with Morris yet at the time of the interview was that the Libyan Debacle was done and dusted - It was a NATO victory and they had successfully co-opted the genuine cries for revolution and 'stabilised' No. 3 in the 'arc of instability' (the first two being Somalia and Sudan). Furthermore Morris would be best to focus on Syria which is quickly becoming an irretrievable cause as British, Turkish, French and Israeli 'military assets' help prop up an train the SFA (Syrian Free Army) - again Assad is bad but a western propped regime amongst civil war is worse. 

      Of course Syria is but No.4 in the arc leading the way to the big 2: Iran and Lebanon, as you can see phony excuses are already being wheeled out - Nuclear yada yada (IAEA report is nothing new and Iranian intel has always been highly politicised etc etc) 
      I am against war, I am also against violence and am of the belief that all we need is Love, however like I said in the interview necessity changes all elements. On Occupy, I am of the belief that it is not the be all end all, in fact far from it - but, It has massive momentum behind it and with the right direction and focus it can prepare the public for what is an imminent forced social change OR prevent it altogether. Maybe with Gods blessings the movement will empower communities to the point where we can reclaim power away from Big Business lobbies.

      We need to do some soul searching as a species if we want genuine love and happiness, But right now as well as that we need to prepare for the second financial crisis and be there with the counter argument. Also, we need to be in the communities, empowering the citizen and reclaiming control of our services, health and livelihood. Finally we need to stand as a nation opposed to war for the interest of Big Business and powerful autocrats here and abroad - this means when they say they're going to war with Iran we say - with the voice of tens of millions - NO! and we take it upon ourselves to actively through civil disobedience prevent the departure of arms etc. Apathy must die.

      Peace and Love.
      Josh

      P.S please don't take my word for truth - actively research the statements I've made - I say this because I unfortunately don't have time to reference this communication.. 

      • Hello Josh,

        Thank you for taking the time to comment.

        I did Google your article, "The Libyan Quagmire," and found it readily available here: "The Libyan Quagmire," by Joshua Virasami. Counterfire. September 1, 2011. http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/14572-the-libyan-quagmire.

        Let me say at the outset that I see you have a gift for considering and weighing many factors simultaneously.

        My own view is that all the factors you mention factor in to one degree or another, and I can still hear the decision makers in the various nations listening to people pushing one or another or many with different degrees of emphasis.

        Let me also state up front that I expressly called upon NATO not to employ violence but rather to aid humanitarianly only while dialoguing with Qaddaffi to do as much as possible to bring him to his senses. That said, I do understand fully the fear Hillary Clinton had that Libya would become Obama's Rwanda. That fear was genuine on her part if not altogether "humanitarian." Even as a military power, it was not necessary to bomb the Hell out of areas of Libya to bring down Qaddaffi, but I won't go into issues of Special Ops here – nor do I want to encourage them.

        I am not a capitalist, per se, either as an owner of the means of production or as a capitalist wannabe/employee, so to speak. I disagree with capitalism as an ideology even while I do not subscribe to coercive socialism. Pardon my not elaborating on that though right now in this comment reply, as it would take spelling out a theology that to understand would mean laying much groundwork, not that you would necessarily not grasp it.

        As for your comment that Morris should focus on Syria, I completely agree. Your having mentioned Somalia and Sudan shows me that you understand that in looking at Syria, it is necessary to look globally. Superimposed over the Arc(s) of Instability you mention is still the Axis of Evil, a la George W. Bush. Very much still alive within the neocon/Zionist "intelligence" in the US is the Worldwide Attack Matrix. Obama has his own take on that that he was very clear about in his campaign. He doesn't like the "heavy" war style that was used in Iraq. He much prefers the methods used to get Osama and Anwar al-Awlaki, et al. Obviously, he will engage in relatively massive bombing and support if talked into it, as he was concerning Libya. He wasn't kidding that he really had to be talked into it. If Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice hadn't pounded on it politically, if they hadn't been there, he wouldn't have gone along with it, at least not until after Qaddaffi had already done a great deal of his threatened house-to-house bloodletting.

        Now, on to Assad. He's really bad. I agree with you that expanding empire is also really bad. No leadership ever seems capable or willing to begin the hard work of ending the various cycles involved in all the evil on all the levels, from individual hearts all the way to supranational governments and the coming successor/iteration of the League of Nations, whether still called the UN or not.

        Why in the world didn't Obama invite Assad to the US before the Arab Spring heated up so much to work with Assad to put in real reforms without neoliberal self-servicing but rather for the general welfare of the whole planet and, as you say, species? The stupidity of the bankster-plutocrats and their bought-off politicians is astounding.

        Concerning Iran, the neocons are the problem and have been since before Carter. Iran should not have been subjected to regime change in 1953. It was a huge error. It can't be overstated how dumb it was.

        If the US with or without Israel or Israel with a wink from Obama or the next President attacks Iran, it will likely be the biggest foreign-policy blunder by the US in my lifetime, and that's saying quite a bit. Naturally, I agree completely with you about the IAEA Report. I've attacked it repeatedly for the very reasons you've mentioned. It's garbage, and everyone who knows anything about it knows that.

        "I am against war, I am also against violence and am of the belief that all we need is Love...." I'm glad to hear it. I don't know if we define love the same way, but war and violence isn't love. The instigators are a plague.

        "... however like I said in the interview necessity changes all elements." You'd have to elaborate on that, as it is not self-explanatory to me vis-a-vis pacifism. Are you saying that you can be pushed to violence? I know many people take that position.

        I agree with you regarding Occupy in terms of that it is an imperfect vehicle. I'm not of the same mentality as Anonymous (I absolutely disagree with their "we don't forgive" position; In fact, I rather hate it) or the anarchists who got the Occupy Wall Street ball rolling. There are many things with which I do agree with them, but I'm not a secularist and do not believe that working within that system will ever result in the solutions we need. Like Jesus though, I speak to secularists and in secular forums.

        The second financial crisis is actually part of the same L-shaped depression. The banksters have simply been hiding their speculative losses that they planned to have for the very reason that they could attempt to do all the things you see they've been attempting to do: ruin the welfare state and deeply enslave the masses under the constantly consolidating and shrinking (relative to total population) number of superrich who are becoming that much richer as individuals via ruining and spoiling (robbing).

        For an alternative, I've been telling people about United States Notes now for what feels like ages. The Federal Reserve Notes are interest-bearing. United States Notes are not. The entire US National Debt could be paid off nearly instantly via replacing Federal Reserve Notes with United States Notes. The federal government could very easily issue United States Notes for all things the people need and want and at the exact amount required to avoid both inflation and deflation. Eventually, money wouldn't be needed. That could happen quickly if the people could be made to catch onto the basic economic principles.

        We have the technology right now to control the supply of money to avoid the business cycle (a sham). It is that technological aspect that is original thinking with me. Others have been advocating for United States Notes all along.

        Just to be clear, in case you are little-versed in economics, this change to United States Notes would mean no bonds and, therefore, no bond tyrants able to shove austerity (artificial scarcity, another sham) down the people's throats.

        What we need to do is to stop being locked into Marxism as the only alternative to capitalism. We don't need a violent revolution. We don't need a dictatorship, per se, of the workers. We also need to avoid the hyper-centralization of typical Stalinist thinking. We also don't need to do away with God. In fact, we need God; but that's another post, and I know I'd be preaching to the choir in going into that with you.

        Lastly, let me mention that I don't use the concept of civil disobedience. It is counterproductive thinking. It is an admission to subservience where no real subservience exists except psychologically, which is a shame – a shame the people feel they don't have the power right now to do whatever they know is collectively right. They do have that power if they will only accept it.

        In the US right now for instance, those who are peaceably assembled per the First Amendment of our constitution are not being civilly disobedient, as they are the owners of the government and abiding by the First Amendment. The police, and more so those who order them to crack down, are the disobedient ones. They are the outlaws.

        Blessings,

        Tom