« Sad CommentaryPower Down »

Another Endorsement for Change

Moammar Ghaddafi,* via MEMRI:  

The Whole World will Return to the Libyan Model… A Candidate Who Wants People to Vote For Him Keeps Talking About Change”Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi: “You must have seen elections and political parties throughout the world. You must have seen what a farce they are. The whole world will return to the model of the republic of the masses, to communes, to popular conferences, to popular security, to popular defense, to popular capitalism, and to popular socialism. The whole world will return to the Libyan model. I have watched the world and the people in it. I’ve seen that in America, a candidate who wants people to vote for him keeps talking about change. They all keep saying ‘change, change.’ They want to change America and its current political system. They want to make a change in their lives. They say their system is a failure, that their government is a failure, and that their elections are a failure. An American who wanted to get elected said: ‘I will make a change.’”
“None of the Peoples Want Elections”

“To this day, there is no ideal ruling system in the world, which can resolve the problems. There are conflicts everywhere. They are still asking: ‘Who won the elections - Al Gore or Bush?’ If someone gets 49% of the votes, and you get 51%, you become president, against the will of 49% of the voters. Is that democracy? That is a farce. No more than 30% of the public goes to vote in the elections. None of the peoples want elections. They got fed up with the farce of elections and those trash ballots. None of those who vote are willing to die for the president. They say: ‘Whoever rules - rules. It has nothing to do with us.’”

“A Very Small Minority Decides Who Will Be President… Is That a Democracy?”

“I asked the Americans: How could you elect a crazy man like Reagan? He turned out to be actually crazy. They said to me: ‘Never. How could we possibly elect someone like that?’ So who voted for him? They said: ‘We have no idea, but it wasn’t us.’ They said: ‘We didn’t even go to vote. A small group of people, to whom he gave money, voted for him.’

“If 30% at most vote in the elections in a country in which 10 million people are eligible to vote, then seven million people said they would not vote. When there are 10 million eligible voters, at most three million turn out to vote.

“Let’s say that there are three candidates. The first two get 1,000,000 votes each, and the third gets 1,000,001 votes. The third candidate wins and becomes the president. In other words, nine million voters will be ruled against their will. A very small minority decides who will be president, and they say they got a majority because they won one extra vote. Is that a democracy? How can you rule nine million people who did not vote for you? This is the epitome of dictatorship.”

All the other dictators and state sponsors of terrorism laugh at Mo because he got snookered by that regime-change thing in 2003. Now he’s like a pariah among pariah states. It’s pretty bad. When the dictator-coddling pols argue about who wants to coddle dictators the most, his name doesn’t even come up.  He’s as dated as his hairdo, rambling on about some guy who hasn’t been president for 20 years.

But Mo’s pointing out that it’s time for change. Back to the future. A return to the Libyan model, and a time when the world tolerated crazy terrorism-sponsoring dictators. Even feared them. Even Americans are sick of their silly, bankrupt system, and are flocking to the candidate who promises the most change.  It’s another endorsement for change.

Mo vid here.

(Sign of how far behind the times Mo is: In this country we’ve actually advanced beyond elections to cultish exaltation.) 

* Your favorite Khadafi spelling in comments please.

Topics: America, Libya

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:12 am on Friday, March 7, 2008

13 Responses to “Another Endorsement for Change”

1. Fatty Bolger Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am

   This reminds me of arguments I’ve had before about how democracy is supposedly not for everybody, and that some people simply prefer a dictatorship over the ability to pick their own leaders. To which I say, hey, I’m a reasonable guy, who knows? You might be right. Let’s hold a fair vote and ask them which they would prefer. The typical response would best be described as “sputtering.”

2. RebeccaH Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am

   Just yesterday, Mr. H’s 70-year-old uncle was railing on about the mess America is in, and the political choices we have this election year, and then he said: “We just need a dictator to straighten this mess out.”

   I was astonished, but then I always did think he was a simple-minded old fool.

3. tanstaafl Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

   Apparently, there is some giant Trinity Church of Chicago, “Minister” Farrakhan, Mo Ghadafi* nexus of ideology out there.

   Christopher Hitchens in a recent conversation with Hugh Hewitt:

   I don’t think the candidate to the presidency of the United States should go to ethnic based Churches with a sort of partly rock and roll liturgy and a partly pro-Qaddafi and pro-Farrakhan theology. I just think that ought to disqualify you. And I think it’s outrageous that it hasn’t been mentioned.

   *Mo has a lot of nerve talking about “nuts” people since it has been claimed for some time that his own elevator no longer goes all the way to the top

4. tanstaafl Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

   * Your favorite Khadafi spelling in comments please.

   Seymour :)

   (that’s funny, I’ve had such a hard time ™ figuring out to spell that man’s name)

5. tanstaafl Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

   “We just need a dictator to straighten this mess out.”

   I think the (every recycling) appeal of authoritarianism is a valid concept across the spectrum.

   It’s as if authoritarianism has some seductive power that makes it nearly impossible to resist.

   http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/appeal_of_authority.php

6. saltydog Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

   This is what happens when the abjuration of proper definitions. This country was never a democracy — a system our founders abhorred and rightfully eschewed. We are a constitutionally limited Republic.

   Folks ought to remember that every statist regime is founded on democracy, though they usually quickly descend into full tyranny. Remember those elections in Iraq where 100% of the electorate always showed up to vote, giving the tyrant 99% of the vote? The USSR was a democracy, with regular elections. Cuba … well, you get the idea.

   Our representatives in government are elected by a majority, with the presidency submitted to the Electorial College so that no major population center can rule by numbers alone. All one must do is have a look at the voting practices of, say, New York and Los Angeles to see the wisdom here. But the majority does not rule the land. The constitution rules this country, or it is supposed to. The problems began when the ruling philosophy slowly changed to statist principles, giving the government a more prominent part of every individual’s life, thereby growing the government. It didn’t take long for the country to begin to describe itself as a democracy, rather than as a republic.

   That anyone could call for a dictator in this country shows just how far we’ve moved from our actual form of government and reminds us that words have meaning, and that meaning is founded in reality. In reality, democracy means the rule of the many, with rights vested in the majority. Our constitutionally limited republic vested rights in the individual, which is the only way an individual can be considered equal before the law. We see the results of the difference in thinking all around us. There are too many people who think exactly like Khadafi and A’jad.

   We do have a perfect example of this thinking in Gaza, where the majority chose to vote in tyranny and war and death. Democracy? Pffft.

7. MikeH Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

   I like that aural picture Salty “We are a constitutionally limited Republic.” Limited sounds good.

8. RebeccaH Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

   Well said, Salty. In the case of Mr. H’s uncle, he doesn’t think his casual remark about dictators means the loss of freedom. He is so stupid, he thinks he means somebody who will “fix things”. This is exactly the kind of person who allows dictatorships to happen, and then wonders what the hell went wrong.

   But don’t tell Mr. H I said his uncle is stupid. Even though he is.

9. Fatty Bolger Says:
   March 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

   Hey, dictators do fix things. Elections, mostly.

   One quibble, saltydog. In the examples you gave, tyranny came first, then the show elections. It’s not always that way, but I think it’s the norm.

10. Vanguard of the Commentariat Says:
    March 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    “I asked the Americans: How could you elect a crazy man like Reagan?”

    Easy, unlike Jimmah Carter or Walter Mondull, we knew he would have no problem kicking your ass Khaddaffi,

    Next question.

11. The_Real_JeffS Says:
    March 8th, 2008 at 2:16 am

    But the majority does not rule the land. The constitution rules this country, or it is supposed to.

    Exactly right, salty. That’s why I always dislike the argument that “Bush didn’t win the popular vote in 2000!” (Although the BDS sufferers carefully ignore the fact that he did win the popular vote in 2004). It means nothing.

    Fatty, that’s a great line in your first comment! I’m stealing it.

12. The_Real_JeffS Says:
    March 8th, 2008 at 2:17 am

    Oh, and on selecting a dictator….that’s the desire of lazy and/or stupid people who want someone else to fix problems, and keep them from having to make a decision.

    Morons.

13. saltydog Says:
    March 8th, 2008 at 3:19 am

    Fatty Bolger: No quibble here. It was my own poor construction that is the problem. All major modern tyrannies are based on democratic principles. Marxism is a form of democracy, or is supposed to be. It says a lot that Transnational Progressivism, which is the latest mutation of Marxist theory, only pretends to be a democratic form, with the independent nations voting within their countries, but there is no vote for the actual rulers or the really important dictates of the rulers (such as the form and size of bananas).

    Mugabe was voted into office by a majority. Chavez was voted into office by a majority. There are others, especially in South America and Africa, that make my point.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.