Kangaroos in Rwanda - Kagame, Ingabire, Mandela

On December 13, 2013, Victoire Ingabire was sentenced by Rwanda's "kangaroo" Supreme Court to 15 years in prison on politically motivated and trumped up charges including "conspiring to form an armed rebel group," "spreading false rumors," and "genocide ideology"[a]  (a catch-all term in Paul Kagame's Rwanda used to jail anyone with the slightest disagreement with his regime). This sentence came as Ingabire, leader of the United Democratic Party, was appealing her previous 8 year sentence.

Victoire Ingabire with head shaved in prison

There is no doubt that this sentence was politically motivated and a revenge attack on a woman who stood for nothing other than democracy in a Rwanda where tyrannical and murderous rule is the norm.

A very simple web search will show even skeptics that Paul Kagame can be quoted standing against democracy and the rule of law.  Though the "official story" is that he stopped the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, the facts on the ground say otherwise. Kagame even prides himself in the fact that he pursued genocidaires into Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and in the process massacred innocent Hutu Refugees [b].

Kagame makes no secret about being a tyrant. World leaders, including Former American President Bill Clinton and Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, continue to defend Kagame's autocratic rule as a necessary step to retain order.  Kagame has said that his nation is not yet ready for democracy [c].

Such quotes are very disturbing considering that Ingabire's pre-determined trial was underway as Kagame was in South Africa "paying his last respects" to Nelson Mandela.  There is no way possible, however, that one could respect Nelson Mandela and continue to rule in the manner that Kagame rules. The mere presence of Kagame in South Africa at any time during the mourning of Mandela was an insult to the memory of possible the greatest freedom fighter the world has ever known.

The late Nelson Mandela

Mandela stood for justice and equality. It is true that his ways were not always peaceful. It is true that he resorted to violence in order to gain attention and victory for the freedom of Blacks in South Africa.  The difference comes when Mandela was freed from jail.  At that moment, Mandela left all hate in his jail cell. Very few people would have denied Mandela the right to be angry with those who persecuted him and jailed him for 27 years. Instead, Mandela did the unthinkable. When elected President of South Africa, Mandela incorporated many of his former enemies into his government. Mandela formed a "Truth and Reconciliation" committee where true justice and true reconciliation between people could happen.

Kagame's mere appearance at the funeral arrangements for Mandela were a mockery of peace and justice. While Kagame touted Mandela's accomplishments, the very opposite were happening in Rwanda to Ingabire.

Paul Kagame

Paul Kagame is showing the world his true colors - the colors of murder, revenge, hatred, violence, and oppression. The world, unfortunately, is not looking. Kagame has pillaged not only his own native Rwanda, but he has also twice invaded the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Had his targets been solely military and related to those who committed the Genocide of 94, many may be able to excuse these invasions, but when the death toll of his invasions reaches the 6 million + mark, the world must ask itself, "why?" Why is Kagame given free-reign over the Great Lakes region of Africa? Why is Kagame so murderous? Why is Kagame afraid of political threats? Why is Kagame afraid of peace?

It is high time that the nations of the world withdraw aid from the Kagame government.  The aid sent to Kagame only support his terroristic causes. There is no "greater good" with Kagame. Unless Kagame repents of his thuggish ways, all aid should be suspended, all diplomatic relations cut off, and Kagame should be treated as he treats his political foes - But this time, it would be warranted - He would be treated as the criminal he is.


[a] http://sfbayview.com/2013/victoire-ingabire-the-woman-who-challenged-rwandas-paul-kagame/
[b] Ibid.
[c] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubrx3-7Q-DM

Nelson Mandela - A Hero for Our Time

Nelson Mandela, Former President of South Africa, Former "Criminal" (to the Apartheid Regime), Former Activist, Former Leader of the African National Congress in South Africa died yesterday, December 5, 2013 at the age of 95.  Although he has a lot of "formers" in his long resume, Mandela, or "Madiba" as he is affectionately known through his Xhosa clan name or Tata (meaning "Father"- as in "Father of the Nation") will eternally be known as a Hero!

Madiba is not a hero because he was a super-human who did super-human things. He is a hero because he was a human who did human things in a very super way.

The first time I remember hearing about Mandela was very close to his imminent release from prison in 1990. I would have been 12 years old. I remember that day - February 11, 1990 - watching the news coverage (CNN if I remember correctly) all day to see this man released from prison. My 12 year old mind didn't fully understand his importance, but seeing all the celebration, I knew there had to be something special that was happening that day. I remember sitting with anticipation waiting for this man; this man that I wasn't even sure who he was; to be released. For some reason his release was running late, but I watched nonetheless. When I saw him walk through the gates, I felt a sense of happiness that I could not explain. I had no idea of his greatness except through what the news commentators had been saying up to that point. I heard him speak of a new South Africa.

That was the day that Mandela came onto the radar screen of a young American boy and left an impression that would never leave.  From that day forward, he would be a hero to me.

Mandela stood against injustice and oppression. That is not news to anyone who knows anything about him. This cannot be overstated! Perhaps the greatest oppression he conquered was hate. Mandela had every reason to hate his oppressors that February day that he was released from prison. Instead, he decided to leave his hate and anger behind so that his whole life would not be in a mental prison. He made peace with those who oppressed his people and him. He mastered the art of making peace without making concessions to evil. Mandela did not settle for what would be a "good step," but rather he held out for what was right. In the process, however, he refused to let hate be his motivator no matter what his opponents used as their motivator.

When Mandela was President of South Africa - the first Black President that nation has ever seen, he included members of the former Apartheid Regime in his government. He could have, and some say he should have criminalized them as they did to him. Revenge was not on his mind. Instead, the best interest of South Africa was his goal.

Mandela was not power hungry. While he most likely could have built a cult of personality and held onto power - either officially or unofficially - he quietly stepped down as president without incident.

I stated earlier that Mandela was not a super-human, and I stand by that. But that is what makes him a hero. He was a regular person who did super things. How many people could spend an unjustified 27 years in prison and then forgive his or her captors and go on to lead the nation and include the captors in the government? Who else could set up a truth and reconciliation committee instead of prosecuting and seeking revenge?

Ordinary people can do great things because Mandela did!

Rush vs. the Pope - Really???

Before I begin this endeavor, let me begin by letting my readers know that I am a registered independent voter. I have as many critiques of Democrats as I do of Republicans. Just because this particular critique is of a Republican does not in anyway make Democrats the victors. Democrats have played as much into this issue as have Republicans - it just turns out that a Republican, Rush Limbaugh, is the one that happened to speak up.

We kid ourselves in the United States if we think that either party is "for" the people. Both parties are "for" corporations. That is where they get their financing. I recently saw an internet meme with President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush saying that both are essentially Corporate CEO's.  As sad as that is, that is basically the truth. Of course, these two presidents are not the only presidents who have been "sell outs" to corporations. This has been happening for years.

But now, let me turn my attention to the topic of this writing. The source of my critique can be found here (A Link to the Rush Limbaugh Show).

In this show transcript, Rush Limbaugh takes on and is upset by Pope Francis' "attacks" on "unfettered capitalism as a 'new tyranny.'"

First, Mr. Limbaugh admits that he is not Catholic. That is to his credit. I find this respectable. Unfortunately, this is where Mr. Limbaugh did not stop. Rather than saying he needs to research the Pope's stance or that he respectfully disagrees, Mr. Limbaugh takes a pompous and arrogant attitude displaying that he knows little to nothing about Christian teaching on the subject of economics. What is more disturbing is that the blind followers of Mr. Limbaugh may see what he says as "gospel" and equate it with "true Christian teaching" thus perverting the True Gospel.

Limbaugh says that the Pope has gone "beyond Catholicism" and has become "pure political." It would do Limbaugh well to recognize that the Gospel message is political. By claiming "Jesus is Lord," we are not making a mere spiritual statement, we are making a political statement. By saying, "Jesus is Lord," we are saying, "Caesar (or the President, or the King, or Money, or whatever else) is not Lord." We are saying that we may respect our earthly rulers, but we are saying that we worship our Messianic Ruler. No political statement can be larger than that. It would do Limbaugh well to research the martyrs who have given their lives because they refused to honor the ruler of the day because they worshipped the one true God incarnate in Jesus Christ. Limbaugh would be wise to research those who have dedicated their lives to serving this God incarnate in Christ, who is at odds with the world's political systems, at great risk and suffering to their own comfort and well being.  Limbaugh would be very wise to visit his local homeless shelter where everyday people are violating his "winner take all" system and giving to the "least of these" as Christ commanded. That, my friends, is politics.

Mr. Limbaugh goes on to say that the Vatican itself would not exist without capitalism.  On this point, he may be right. I say, "may be right" because I am not versed well enough in Catholic Church history to know how the Vatican was funded. I would assume, that the ornate decorations, the vast amount of gold and jewels, and the artwork were not donated. But, again, Mr. Limbaugh is assuming that these items were bought on the free market in competition. I will tread lightly because it may be possible that some of these items were up for competition among buyers. The majority, however, were specially made for the Vatican. Of course it took money and profit to buy them. But the capitalism that it took to buy those items is not the same type of capitalism it takes to run a multi-national company that competes with another multi-national company while employing workers and holding the fates of towns and cities in the palms of their hands.

He then goes on to accuse the Pope of Marxism. A "theologian" such as Limbaugh should know very well that a Marxism is a worldly system and is of no concern to the economics of God's Kingdom. Pope John Paul II had strong criticisms of Communism (mostly of the Soviet Union). The fact that Pope Francis is critiquing Unfettered Capitalism does not mean that he is in an "either-or" game. The Pope is advocating God's Economics. When he says that the rich should share their wealth, that is not Marxism, that is "Jesusism." Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me (Matthew 25:40)." Jesus is not advocating an earthly economic system. Jesus is pronouncing the Kingdom of God. Does the Kingdom of God look like Marxism? Hardly! Marxism excludes a certain class of people. The Kingdom of God includes everyone who would be a part. The only exclusion is self-exclusion. 

Limbaugh sets up a poor argument to accomplish his political agenda. After accusing the Pope of Marxism, he goes into a rant about how Democrats are modern day Socialists. First of all, this is completely untrue, and second of all, this is just short of blasphemy that he uses the Church to do this. The Democrats are as close to Socialism as Limbaugh is. Both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to Unfettered Capitalism. The Democrats give lip-service to "care for the poor" as do Republicans. Both parties say they have solutions, but in the end, neither party delivers. Neither party creates jobs. Neither party increases the family income. Neither party decreases the number of people who need social welfare. Instead, they blame the need for welfare on the recipients instead of on the system. Of course there are some who abuse the system. There will always be people who abuse ANY system. But to blame the millions who are on welfare for their own plight is ludicrous. When there are no jobs to find, when the poor and racial minorities are confined to the worst parts of cities with bad schools and no job training, when faith communities refuse to see their neighbors as themselves, what do we expect? 

Later in his show, Limbaugh goes on a patriotic discussion of the United States. He talks of American exceptionalism. I certainly hope Limbaugh is not expecting to convert the Pope to his line of thinking. I also hope he is not expecting to convert Christians to this narrative. Christians can love whatever nation they are from. Christians can find beauty and goodness in the world. Christians, however, are "resident aliens" in this world. Stated differently - This world is not our home. Those of us who live in the United States do not deny the goodness of our nation. Our ultimate allegiance, however, is with the Kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ. Contrary to Limbaugh and our founding documents, we DO NOT have a God Given Right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We may have a legal right to that here in America, and that can be debated depending on your social and racial class, but we do not have a God Given Right. God did not inspire the Constitution. God inspired the Bible. There were some God loving people who wrote the Constitution, and there were some who did not know God who wrote the Constitution. Compare it to this: I love God, but God did not inspire this article. I wrote this article. God did not. This article is not Scripture. God gave me the skills to critique and to write, but this article is not beyond error. You, my reader, are allowed to disagree with anything in here. I may disagree with my own writing in a few days or weeks. It's happened before, and it may happen again.

Limbaugh concludes with a long rant about Democrats, Communism, and sharing wealth. Basically, Limbaugh is shadow boxing in this argument because he does not know what he is arguing. He thinks he is arguing against a real political foe, but he is not. Limbaugh is not arguing against a Democrat or a Communist. Limbaugh has labeled the Pope something he is not. The Pope is not concerned with changing from one system of economics to another current system of economics. In that area, Limbaugh is right. Moving from Capitalism to Communism would be disastrous - Or, it would be as disastrous as Unfettered Capitalism.  Instead, the Pope is calling all Christians to follow God's Economic Plan. 

God's Economic Plan is one of abundance. The world's economic plans are of scarcity. If we followed God's plan, there would be enough for all. Look at the statistics - there are enough resources and wealth for every person on this planet. There is no statistical reason that anyone should starve to death. Notice I didn't say, "be poor," or "go without something one wants." I said, "STARVE TO DEATH." Take a moment and think what that means. Most of us can't even envision ourselves starving to the point of death. But millions do it every year. Millions do it when there is enough food and resources to prevent it. The Pope is calling for simple Christian charity, but he is also calling for world transformation. He is calling for us to live into what Christ has called us to do. We don't change the world - God does. But, Christ has already told us what to do - When will we actually listen?