Wrong mathaba.net: Regardless of what you think of George Soros, the regime he wants is definitely not in power in Egypt

Here's what mathaba.net wrote about George Soros and Egypt and the Arab Spring there (which is far from over):

In Tunisia and Egypt, simple regime changes took place, and the new leaders are those backed by George Soros money, as one of the wealthiest of the Jewish-Zionist groups among the Global Power Elite.

via A Critical View of Bahrain Protests.

George Soros does not back the Egyptian military that is still in command in Egypt. To suggest otherwise, which is what Mathaba has done, is as misleading as it gets. Soros backs those who are opposed to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces leading Egypt.

There's just so much wrong with that Mathaba article.

Qaddaffi was anti-democratic during his whole reign. Yet, here's what Mathaba says at the outset:

The now famous "Arab Spring", has shown itself by now to have not been what good people had hoped for, an improvement in democracy, human rights, and freedom as defined by the people within their cultural needs.

Why bring up democracy when the one who fell was anti-democratic?

Look, Obama had to be dragged into Libya. Read the history. Hillary was afraid of another Rwanda, and rightly so (even though her foreign policy mostly stinks).

As for Syria, more than any other Arab leader, Assad had the best opportunity to reform in time. Of course, there are dozens of countries "meddling" in Syria, but Assad has been his own worst enemy. He could have announced and worked hard to enforce sweeping reforms and allow the foreign press in. Just those two actions would have completely changed the whole dynamic in his favor. The protesters really did start out open to Assad remaining in power. It was not as it was in Libya (albeit, even Qaddaffi had a window that he slammed shut with all of his bloody talk). The Syrian protesters were much more patient while they were attacked over and over and over. Assad could have begun reforms before the first protest even hit Syria. Face it. He's stupid.

As for Bahrain, the Bahrain protesters are majority Shia. Bahrain is majority Shia. The king is Sunni and autocratic. Iran is majority Shia. The Arab Spring in Bahrain has been a Shia Spring attempt. That's obvious. In general, the Saudis are Sunnis and Arab. Also in general, the Iranians are Shia and Persian. That's what's going on. The Zionists exploit it. They didn't create it. Mathaba tries to foist it off as entirely a New World Order attempt, as if the Sunnis and Shias never fought each other without Zionist stimulation. The "New World Order" Mathaba has in mind is anti-Iran right now. Think about 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)

  • 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.
    • Yes that was an error: "and the new leaders are those backed " => "and the new leaders in Tunisia are those backed" and will be corrected. Yes, regarding democracy in Libya, it is not so simple. Please see http://greencharter.com for more as to why Qaddafi is not as claimed by Zionist media, a dictator.

      • Big of you to admit it. I'm actually quite favorably impressed by it.

        Oh yes, I've been through the material (http://greencharter.com) before.

        I've lost "friends" over Qaddaffi -- been banned for not thinking Qaddaffi was a "great leader."

        The problem with me is that I want the best. I've had it with the lesser of evils. Just give me no evil. That will make me happy.

        I'm very idealistic and see nothing wrong with that at all.

        People should raise their standards. Low standards are killing us.