LDS Freedom Forum

Seems like it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if the handshake has no symbolic value:



He was betrayed by leaders of the west he had a working relationship with. He could arguably have been one of the most western-oriented leaders of the Arab world in which there was religious tolerance, women's equality and social policies that were intended to advance his nation and all of Africa (that was his long-range plan). Then he proposed changing the way he would sell his oil and Obama, with the assistance of puppet states in NATO, decimated Libya and handed it over to ISIS or ISIS-like elements.

I have been under the impression that Gadaffi, like Assad, was unwilling to submit to and cooperate with the planned New World Order. My guess is that contributed greatly to his demise.

When it comes to the middle east, the most "idealistic" presidents were Jimmy the Peanut, to a lesser degree George W Bush and to a far greater degree Obama. All other presidents have been more "pragmatic" (whether you agree with their policies or not). This is driven by a PC lack of recognition that not all cultures are equal. Some are better than others.

Is a representative government the best way to govern? It is, only if the people are reasonably moral, and generally don't seek to do evil. It is not Politically correct to recognize that the Muslim culture is so evil and corrupt that the only way to govern those countries effectively is with some thug dictator. There is no example of a Muslim country (with the possible exception of Turkey... which was very secularized in the early 20th century and is now descending into the same cesspool as the other Muslim countries) that did not descend into more violence and chaos after getting the freedom to choose their leaders than before, when they were led by thug dictators.

In the case of Jimmy the Peanut, we got Iran under the Ayatollas which is worse than under the Shah. In the case of George W. Bush, while I don't subscribe to conspiracy wacko theories about his motivation for invading Iraq, after the invasion of Iraq was complete, he felt we had a duty to build a western style democracy there, which for a brief time looked like it might work, but has descended into the hell that is Iraq today (I guess reasonable people could disagree as to how much of this was George W. Bush's fault for trying to build this western style democracy and how much Obama's for abandoning those elements in Iraq who were struggling to complete this task) . Of course by far the greatest such blind idiotic idealogue has been Obama who has supported every evil Muslim populist movement that took over and made totalitarian despotic nations into complete Hell on earth, whether Libya, Syria, Egypt under the Muslim brotherhood , Somalia, and the list goes on.

I guess the bottom line for us is to try and make sure that we don't become so evil ourselves that we cannot be governed except by a thug dictator.

Regards,

George Clay