500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

Sign Up to Receive Alerts and Newsletters from Laigle's Forum

Latest Posts:

Using the truth to deceive us

March 31st, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, Government, Russia | No Comments »

How they deceive us with the truth

 

Don Hank

 

The following is a true account.

In 1964, an athlete in his prime savagely attacked an older, handicapped man with his fists in full view of countless witnesses, causing the victim lacerations under the left eye and severe bruising under the right eye.

The assailant was never arrested but amazingly, the victim was arrested weeks later!

What I have just described is the Cassius Clay-Sonny Liston fight of 1964.  I used a tactic employed daily by media and government, inserting accurate enough details but omitting the most important details that the public would need to assess the situation correctly.

At the time of the fight, Liston was suffering from severe bursitis and at one point could not lift one of his arms beyond waist level. This “handicapped man” was in fact a ruthless ex-con who had learned boxing in prison. Sports reporters considered him the most feared boxer in history. His arrest weeks after the fight was for drunken driving and driving without a license.

Now if reporters had reported this fight as I did above, they would have lost all credibility. Yet in matters of war that cost the lives of young men, they—and their cohorts in politics—report in precisely this manner when describing a supposed enemy in an effort to stir up war from scratch.

After 911 at ground zero, G. W. Bush, his arm draped around the shoulder of a NY fireman, said on live TV, “The people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

The people responsible were all Saudis, every one, and strong evidence later surfaced that the Saudi government had supported the terrorists. Yet, the people who “heard from” us were the nation of Iraq. Classic bait and switch.

The Kosovo war serves to show how US legal rationale is applied lopsidedely in Ukraine, based on accurate enough details but with the main ones omitted.

The US declared that Russia had no right to intervene to help the Crimeans secede, despite the overwhelming desire of these Russian speaking people to unite with their brothers in the Russian Federation—particularly since they had reason to fear for their safety in a region dominated by anti-Russian Ukrainians, who wanted to deny a nation with a Russian speaking majority the right to speak their language at home. The official US argument was that international law forbids any country to intervene in a secessionist civil conflict.

Yet that stands in direct contradiction to what Bill Clinton did in Kosovo.

The US reasoned during the Kosovo War of 1998-9 that it was legitimate to support Kosovo’s secession from the then sovereign Serbia because the Kosovars supported such—even though the decision to secede was made under a UN administration not elected by Kosovars. The US had done the same thing in Panama, militarily supporting that department’s secession from Colombia.
Yet later, in 2008, the US government later told the Russians that they could not militarily support the secession of South Ossetia because Georgia was a sovereign country (the EU wisely abstained from using the same lopsided logic at the time).
According to US reasoning, what was “legal” in Kosovo and earlier in Panama (secession supported by a foreign power, the US) was illegal in S. Ossetia because the foreign power happened to be Russia in that case. But hatred of Russia could never be a valid legal argument.
This is how the US government makes up international jurisprudence on the fly.
But you can’t have it both ways in law, international or other.
Now the Russians are using the US’s own logic to defend their actions in Crimea. The US government may or may not be correct in their interpretation of international law, but they have no legal authority to oppose what the Russians and Crimeans did because they themselves set the precedent for this kind of action.

A revisit of Kosovo is instructive. Numerous reports show that Western media and the US government brazenly hid important details to present the false picture that only the (Christian) Serbs had committed atrocities, whereas the Kosovars (Muslims), whom we portrayed as the good guys, had perpetrated their share of wholesale atrocities as well.

It would be a stretch to imagine that the Albanian Kosovars, who had committed genocide against Serbs in coordination with the Nazis in WW II, had suddenly become choir boys, as Western media suggested at the time. An article containing a series of gruesome photos of Serbs brutally murdered by Kosovars was published at a Serbian web site, even as Western governments and media were insisting that the Kosovars were the innocent victims. Another report showed that Kosovars killed Serbs for organ harvest.

Lest the reader think the above linked reports were purely anti-US propaganda, even the left leaning Amnesty International (natural allies of Clinton) admitted that the UN unfairly reported exclusively atrocities perpetrated by Serbs, when in fact, the Kosovars had been equally brutal.

Even the elitist CFR admitted Kosovo was a botch-up.

Fast forwarding, a similar false portrait was painted in Ukraine, where the rebels were portrayed as innocent victims, whereas in reality, they had broken into an armory and used rifles to kill the police of a democratically elected government.

Psychologists tell us that single instances of a behavior are not significant in evaluating a patient. But when enough of these instances have been documented, then a behavior pattern is established.

From Panama to Kosovo, from Georgia to Ukraine, from Libya to Egypt, Western governments and their cohorts in media have established a clear cut pattern of one-sided reporting and one-sided interpretation of international law—a pattern that is best described as fraud. It has cost untold human lives and suffering, both to our young sent to war and to the peoples of invaded nations.

It is therefore no less criminal than an overt act of brutality by a tyrant. The overt tyrant commits the atrocities himself.

The deceiving tyrant induces us to commit them.

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Why don’t conservatives and moderates see eye to eye?

July 24th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Christian, Conservatism, Culture Wars, Islam | 4 Comments »

Why don’t conservatives see eye to eye with moderates?

by Don Hank

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.   Ephesians 6:12

A good friend of mine (whom we shall call X herein), recently raised a very important question (see title) that we often fail to answer, mostly because most of us simply can’t. This is because there are 2 kinds of true conservatives:

1–the kind who have been brought up to believe in a rigid conservative ideology, whose instincts tell them they are right but who have no idea why or how to defend it. This group is hard put to articulate its ideas and hence often reacts with anger to the Left and to ‘moderates.’ They expect them to understand common sense, and in a perfect world, they would. (They don’t understand the spiritual block against understanding).

2–the kind who have thought things through and can answer the questions of the Left and the ‘moderates’ who are deceived by the Left.

I strive to belong to the latter group. Lord forgive me where I have failed, but I try. Here is my response to X’s question as to why moderates are different from conservatives.

 

Dear X,

I think the main reason for the difference is that moderate conservatives don’t see the ‘continental drift’ of popular social and political thought in recent years. They have no idea what cultural Marxism is and they can’t see how they are manipulated by the MSM. After all, has anyone noticed the physical drift in the American continent in their lifetime? It is too minuscule to notice. Only a scientist can verify its existence. By the same token, most people could not possibly notice how the nation’s definition of ‘conservative’ has been stealthily altered by sly operatives in MSM, ‘education,’ politics, Hollywood, academe, etc.

In particular, they don’t understand that a group of white billionaire elitist men is trying to grab the reins of the planet. To them that is just too outlandish to wrap their minds around. That is also why they still insist that G.W. Bush, an advocate of a borderless US (NAU), of amnesty for the lawless, of the bailout of banks with your money and mine, and of Middle East wars that result in the death and exodus of millions of Christians, is a conservative.

It is all a matter of perception, and of our willingness to face truth head-on rather than simply to dodge the more thorny issues. More importantly, it is a spiritual question and they are spiritually blind.

Ironically, the most powerful apologists for Judeo-Christianity are the atheist-humanist transnational elitists themselves. Even if most people steadfastly believe that our struggle is against operatives of the material world, the behavior of these elitists clearly demonstrates that they know it is a spiritual battle and not a material one. They fight with that realization in mind, while we largely struggle—vainly—on the material level and wonder how it is that we are failing. Yet how could we possibly expect to win if we direct our efforts at a target that is not there?

Read more:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/why-don-t-conservatives-see-eye-to-eye-with-moderates

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Definition drift in the Snowden case

July 5th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Censorship, Freedom, Government | 1 Comment »

Most Americans still associate the idea of illegal informants or spies with people like the Rosenbergs, who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Indeed, articles on famous spies before about 1970 show that most high profile cases were working for the Soviets.

Thus, before the 70s, a spy was generally thought of as a person who shared secrets, often military, with a perceived enemy who could be expected to use those secrets to harm America, and the expected or potential harm was usually of a military nature.

Beginning with the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971, the unofficial definition of “espionage” and “spy” started to shift subliminally in the minds of Americans, along with the unofficial definition of “enemy,” in keeping with the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China. In the broadest terms, the shift could be described as being away from freedom and toward government tyranny.

Of the ten accused informants under this act, none were said to have spied for the Soviet Union, only one, Bradley Manning, allegedly leaked information that may have compromised the safety of American and allied military personnel and one, Jeffrey Sterling, allegedly leaked information about US planned sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, which could have perhaps enabled the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon somewhat earlier. These three could have arguably compromised our security.

The others, however, disclosed classified details, mostly to reporters, that in the Old America, We the people would have felt entitled to know.

More here:

 http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/definition-drift-in-the-ed-snowden-case

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Here comes the switch, don’t take the bait

May 15th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank

Two items of interest today.

[BTW, if you enjoy this commentary, I still have room for a few more email addresses on my daily distribution list. This list receives forwarded news items and my commentary on US and world affairs every day. It also gives you a chance to sound off to decision makers, bloggers, writers and thinking people. Choice comments and news items by list members are distributed to the rest. If you want to be added, just send me, Don Hank, an email at zoilandon@msn.com and ask to be added to my Daily Distribution List.]

Item 1

Mark Zuckerberg wants more immigrants to work cheap in his air conditioned sweat shops. He has founded FWD.us, a front org for his pro-immigration plans and is partnering with false ‘conservative’ group Americans for a Conservative Direction.

Cutting to the chase, any conservative organization at this dreadful juncture in the US economy would have to oppose the importation of labor tooth and nail. Our employment is nowhere near where the government says it is.

The government is sweeping millions of statistics under the carpet by saying that people who have given up looking for work are not unemployed. The 100 million on welfare are ‘employed’? We are probably about where Spain is now, were it not for welfare and food stamps. We certainly don’t need to import labor—even if that would make Zuckerberg richer.

To make matters worse, the plan supported by Gang of 8 ringleaders Rubio and Graham, who play the lead roles in the linked videos by Americans for a Conservative Direction, would give amnesty to the people making up over 90 percent of dangerous criminal gangs in our cities. If they said, ‘hey, let’s import more terrorists,’ that would actually be an improvement over their current plan. Gangs kill, rape, steal and deal 24-7. Terrorists only kill on special occasions.

These men need to be thrown out on their ears.

Rubio is lying through his teeth when he says that this new immigration reform plan is tough. It is not tough in any of the ways he says it is.

And that is exactly why Mort Zuckerberg supports Americans for a Conservative Direction. They are Democrats in drag.

And they think real conservatives are stupid.

Item 2

I had previously written that ABC anchor Jonathan Karl had gone on the Bill O’Reilly show and admitted that the administration’s report on the murderous Benghazi attack was full of holes. I had attributed that behavior to a certain ‘collegiality  effect,’ by which Karl would have identified with the dead ambassador and the beleaguered witnesses as colleagues. This would explain why ABC, which had never gone to bat for the little guy, would suddenly turn on their beloved leader.

Now a new report, also very damaging to Obama, comes from the same anchor Jonathan Karl. This time the collegiality effect, if present, is not nearly as prominent. Jonathan Karl seems to be defending all conservatives, both great and small.

 

Read more here to find out why this is just bait and what the intended switch will be:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/here-comes-the-switch-don-t-take-the-bait

[BTW, I still have room for a few more email addresses on my daily distribution list. This list receives forwarded news items and my commentary on US and world affairs every day. It also gives you a chance to sound off to decision makers, bloggers, writers and thinking people. Choice comments and news items by list members are distributed to the rest. If you want to be added, just send me, Don Hank, an email at zoilandon@msn.com and ask to be added to my Daily Distribution List.]

 

 

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

April 25th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

by Don Hank

Sen. Rand Paul, who serves on a committee called Homeland Secturity and Government Affairs, just now woke up and realized that an immigration reform bill of the kind he was touting a few weeks ago, needs to take national security concerns into account. He now backtracks with the following statement:

 

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

 

It’s nice that Rand Paul, author of the above mentioned much touted amnesty proposal that unquestioningly presupposed a competent DHS, finally woke up to the fact that our national security is a disaster. But why did it take a national tragedy to wake him up? What have they been discussing in that Homeland Security committee Rand has been sitting on?

Most of my readers and  correspondents know–and knew long before Rand’s plan was unfurled– that illegal aliens make up about 1/3 of our federal prison population and that Mexicans are the no. 1 demographic in terms of drunken driving convictions, including all of those involving traffic deaths of third parties. And they know that a very substantial percentage of our street drugs come from south of the border and that our downtowns are in thrall to 1.4 million gang members, of which all but 9% are foreign. All of the individuals in these problem demographics would have received a blanket amnesty under Rand Paul’s proposed “reform.”

My correspondents also know that we are in the midst of an economic crisis where jobs are scarce and 100 million Americans are receiving some form of public assistance other than social security, which tallies up to a cool $1 trillion/yr — a record number by far in US history.

So, Mr. Paul, while you have shown some aptitude as a quarterback, your side is unlikely to make touchdowns if you wait until Monday morning to pick up the ball and run.

 

Obama’s office contacts Don Hank!

See the message below first.
Below is my response to Obama’s pals sent to
I just received an urgent message on supporting the climate message of the White House.
I want very much to do that but am confused (I am not a trained climate politician).
I remember that the message used to be global warming and the polar bears were going to drown.
Is it still global warming or is it climate change?
If it is climate change, how is it changing? Warming, cooling or other?
And most importantly, how are the polar bears doing out there? I do hope they will survive this cold (hot?) weather, the poor things! I know I would not want to be out there all alone without any caring politicians around to keep me warm (or cool?).
I want to get it right when I proudly support the President’s message because I don’t want to sound like those silly Republicans who keep denying global warming when they are supposed to support it and then turn right around and deny climate change when they are supposed to support that.
Who knows what they will be denying next! Maybe life on the moon.
Best Regards,
Shirley [my pen name for email to my pal Barack]
—– Original Message —–

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:11 AM
Subject: Thanks For The Email Re: Call these climate deniers out:

Friend,

Thanks for your email.

If you have a question about Organizing for Action or need support, please write us at support@barackobama.com or call (571) 403-1776.

Click here for a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

And if you have a question about the 2012 campaign, including those regarding your contribution(s), merchandise, or an invoice, please contact Obama for America at info@obamabiden.com.

Thanks again,

Organizing for Action

Fisker failure in the news again

Remember that Spain, one of the sick old men of Europe, where photos of dumpster diving Spaniards have surfaced, got to their record unemployment levels thanks in large part to the ‘green’ initiatives of socialist prime minister Zapatero, whose green jobs program cost the country 800,000 euros per job and each job cost 2.2 regular non green jobs.
The only difference between Obama and Zapatero is that Zapatero eventually admitted his mistake and abandoned the project.
Obama just presses on rearward.
Don Hank

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

There are at least four reasons why this story is important:

1–It provides new facts most Americans didn’t know until now and blows up whatever credibility there may have been in the notion that the Islamic Society of Boston (and similar societies elsewhere) is just a group of decent Americans worshipping God in their own way, and just as peaceably as the Christians and Jews in that region. And that the Muslim American Society is demonstrating how Muslims can coexist with you and me and that they are assimilating or want to be part of the great American melting pot.

2–It blows apart any credibility in the notion that the DHS is doing a fine job of protecting you.

3–It discredits the notion that Muslims are viable candidates for integrating in democracies. (Especially since they can’t seem to achieve that goal back home).

4–More importantly, it gives us a much needed warning that calls for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are premature at best, but most likely permanently misguided. It also gives the lie to the Gang of 8′s fractured reasoning that we need to amnesty all 40-60 million (the 11 million figure is from 2000) illegal aliens so that we can find out who they are. If the FBI and the rest of DHS couldn’t figure out who the Brothers Tsarnaev were before they unleashed their mini-holocaust–despite Russian intel’s repeated warnings–there is no hope that our security agencies will learn what they ought to about the millions upon millions of undocumented whom both parties are rushing madly to legalize–instead of doing their job and repatriating them asap.

None of this is to say that a kinder gentler Islam may some day emerge. But that day seems much farther away today than it did yesterday.

Don Hank

AddThis Social Bookmark Button