500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

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

Latest Posts:

What’s behind Bolivia’s economic success?

July 2nd, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank  July 2, 2015

The Mises Institute ran an eye-opening article on Bolivia today, showing that its leftist-populist president Evo Morales has surprised everyone and turned his country into one of the fastest growing economies in the world – a kind of anti-Venezuela. Now since Mises is a libertarian group, opposed to leftist economics, it had some explaining to do and it showed that essentially, Bolivia’s success lies in its ability to circumvent the Washington control freaks of IMF and World Bank, which aim to impoverish and enslave Third World countries with eternal debt and also impose unreasonable social and other demands that interfere with their national sovereignty, such as the requirement to privatize government investments and to enact laws protecting the LGBT class. While privatization has a “free market” ring to it, its goal is to channel multibillion dollar contracts to corporate America and corporate allies. To understand how countries are impoverished by US agents, read the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins, who was in fact a hit man for a corporation called MAIN, a CIA front. One of John’s superiors told him point blank that his job was to make economic forecasts by fudging numbers to make it look like poor countries that could not afford big loans could afford big loans, and that the end goal was to bankrupt the countries and thus make them loyal vassals to the US hegemon.

30 years ago, the CIA would have murdered Evo Morales on the pretext that he is a leftist. But the real reason for such murders, like that of Salvador Allende and Omar Torrijos, was that the US elites saw Latin America as their backyard. In other words, as their own personal possession to dispose of as they saw fit. (They have since shifted their attention to Russia, in an attempt to enforce the Wolfowitz doctrine, whose rationale no one seems able to explain.)

For decades, the worldwide pogrom against communism was mostly a veiled attack on the sovereign right of each people to self-determination, with or without cooperation with the US oligarchs who sought to subjugate them in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.” Without the existential threat from the US military, some hardline “communist” countries would have mellowed, as China and Vietnam are doing, developing vibrant capitalist economies. But that was precisely what the Washington elites feared.

We are seeing the latest throes of this struggle in Ukraine, and at one time, Washington would have prevailed.

But there is a new kid on the block now and it is called the AIIB. This Chinese/BRICS bank aims to defeat the dollar hegemony by creating fair lending terms.

Now Third World countries no longer have to bow to the LGBT agenda or the privatization demands of the Washington elites to secure a loan. The avowed aim is to truly allow the Third World to prosper. After all, prosperous clients spend more. (Gee, why didn’t the US elites think of that?)

If you missed my commentary on the AIIB, here it is again http://drrichswier.com/2015/03/18/why-the-world-bank-cant-compete-with-chinese-aiib/

Don Hank

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Behind the Greek crisis lurks an oil/gas scam

July 1st, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Comments and translation by Don Hank  July 1, 2015

In the context of the current Greek financial crisis, there isn’t much mention of the recently discovered Greek oil and gas deposits, which the author of the article I have translated below says could contribute greatly to reducing the Greek debt and would make Greece eligible for low-interest loans on the same level as Germany and France, rather than the usurious rates it has paid for years to the Troika (IMF, ECB – European Central Bank, and European Commission. The author makes it clear that these lenders all have cynically held Greece hostage with austerity and unrealistically high interest on loans. These three lenders have done exactly what was described in John Perkins’ book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” They are all high level hit men and their goal is to make vassals of their client states.

By now it should obvious that Washington, DC is in fact the enemy not only of the American people (need you look further than the same-sex marriage decision foisted on a Christian nation?) but of all peoples everywhere. Anyone who claims it is un-American to say this is simply cozying up to the Washington Satanists, perhaps unwittingly.

Although the article is written in a jaunty and at times sarcastic style, I was able to verify the main facts on which it is based.

Behind the plot outlined in this post are two main phenomena:

1—The EU Commission, one of the lenders, which is an unelected, and hence dictatorial body. If you scan the article linked in the following, you see, in the context of its constitution, the word “appointed” but not “elected.” It is not answerable to the people and it therefore does not serve their interests, only the interests of a soulless and faceless entity called “Europe.”  The EU Commission, bowing to US pressure, insists on privatization, which deprives the Greek government of the opportunity to extract the oil and gas itself, thereby giving much-needed jobs to Greeks.

http://www.medianeighbourhood.eu/european-union/the-european-commission-promoting-the-common-interest/

2—The imposition of US policies, notably, privatization, which sounds deceptively harmless and suggestive of “free market” but in this context, refers to a subterfuge with the goal of furthering US corporate interests – as distinct from We the People.

 

Verification : http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophercoats/2013/12/12/how-real-is-greeces-oil-and-gas-future/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mediterranean-oil-and-gas-bonanza/29609

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=12014

The author also takes a swipe at the global warming scam, showing how all 7 of the financiers of the Carbon Disclosure Project are US corporations.

 

My translation of this eye-opening WidiStrike article is as follows:

 

http://www.wikistrike.com/2015/06/trop-c-est-trop-j-accuse-pourquoi-la-crise-grecque-voici-la-reponse-cachee.html 

Greek crisis: Oil scam lurking in the background

 

TOO MUCH  is too much … I ACCUSE! (Why the Greek crisis? Here is the hidden answer)

Posted by wikistrike.com on June 29, 2015, 9:15 am

Categories: #Economie

Exclusive WikiStrike

 

A few months ago, I wrote a post titled “Let’s decolonize Europe’s financial occupation…”

A few weeks ago, I wrote another entitled: This is not a conspiracy but a strategy.

I never thought I would have such a vivid demonstration of the reality of these two observations as I had this morning.

Clearly, Greece possesses in its maritime waters oil and gas deposits of exceptional magnitude and abundance.

This news should make headlines in all newspapers, and a remarkably detailed article was written about it in March 2012 by F. William Engdahl, an American journalist specializing in energy and geopolitical issues.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mediterranean-oil-and-gas-bonanza/29609

For thousands of years, the wealth of the subsoil or territorial waters of a country has belonged to the country itself and to its people. There is no need to refer to any ideological doctrine to ensure oneself of this. These deposits would obviously be quite sufficient to allow Greece to reduce its debt.

Foskolos states that there are 22 billion barrels of oil to the south of Crete; he estimates the development prospects of the deposits for 2016-2017, and states that the south of Crete is as rich as Iran.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/cyprus/TN35PGT1GN0UFCRJD

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/archive/index.php/t-59798.html?s=83236824f9c629d06af1860401c34f90

The laws decreed by the European Commission in 2007 regarding the liberalization of the energy market and the possibility of privatizing public enterprises operating and distributing these resources have allowed US investment banks to appropriate part of the European energy transport infrastructure with impunity, taking advantage a market totally destabilized by the so-called European sovereign debt crisis.

Colonized Europe has now taken one step further, since Noble Energy Company, which was not even at the origin of discoveries of Greek deposits (it was the Greek state itself that publicly commissioned the research), claims 60% of the future production.

According to a report by the political analyst Aristotle Vassilakis published in July 2011, Washington’s goal in pushing Greece and Turkey to join forces in oil and gas lies in the expected revenue share from these deposits. According to the report, Washington proposes that Greece would get 20% of turnover, Turkey 20% and the company US Noble Energy, a company that has already secured drilling in Israeli waters and off the Greek side, get the lion’s share, ie 60%. [12] [Don’s note: Turnover is the sales volume, not the profit. 20% would be quite good depending on what the company spends to extract and sell the product. The main problem is the undemocratic way this deal is being negotiated].

Bill, the husband of Secretary of State Hillary is Washington lobbyist on behalf of Noble Energy. [13]

I don’t think it is necessary to add much comment to this incredible scam, of which the Greek people may again end up the victim – in view of the fact that recently, Germany, via its spokesperson, the CEO of Deutsche Bank, demanded the accelerated privatization of European public services.

The media’s silence is nothing more than active complicity in senseless crimes. I do not know who mentioned financial genocide related to Greece or Europe, but we can now add the terms ‘colonization’ and ‘occupation,’ which are favorites of our media and of course the members of the European commission.  Germany had planned a stimulus package for Greece, including free zones favoring foreign investment with complete market deregulation of the Greek labor market: new European labor camps?

If this information was the minimum reported by the media, the interest on Greek lending would probably be at the same level as those of France and Germany. The financing interest levied on the Greeks, like the austerity plans, are therefore the consequences of a huge scam, in which the media participated by their silence.

Greece is the richest country of all Europe! The interest it pays to borrow should be lower than Germany’s!

Will the next step be a fee charged by American companies on the air we breathe? The carbon tax is already in their hands as shown by the financial actors in the Carbon Disclosure Project, which are:

HSBC, J.P.Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, American International Group, and State Street Corp.

And don’t bother asking who has an interest in the new disinformation campaign on diesel pollution diesel.

Enough is enough, and I don’t think we need to waste words showing that our only priority must be to end colonization and this impermissible rip-off, which is perpetrated with the complicity of those who are supposed to serve the interests of Europe. I wouldn’t exactly title my post “The European Sellout,” but I think that title would not be inappropriate.

A report on these findings was issued on13 January 2012 … NO MEDIA saw fit to carry it, even though it was of paramount importance. So where are the requests for bidding?

So yes:

I blame our technocrats for selling off European interests

I blame elected politicians of facilitating the task.

I blame our media for actively participating, by their shameful silence, in divvying up the pie.

But I wouldn’t say: enjoy the pie, Folks.  Instead I’d say it’s time to return to the resistance. [Don’s note: An allusion to the French resistance against the German occupation in WW II]

 

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Grexit? A flesh wound compared to Frexit (exit of France from EU)

June 30th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank  June 30, 2015

 

The Telegraph reports this morning that Greek economic minister Varoufakis now threatens to sue in a higher court if the EU attempts to force Greece to leave the EU (our thanks to G. in the UK for this tip).

The article quotes French President François Hollande as follows:

 

“What is at stake is whether or not Greeks want to stay in the eurozone or want to take the risk of leaving,” said French president Francois Hollande.

 

Now you would think from this bold statement that Hollande heads up a country that pays its bills to the EU on time, wouldn’t you? After all, financial pundits are all saying that if Greece leaves the EU, Spain, Portugal and perhaps even Italy could be next. No one mentions France.

However, there’s a colossal French debt that no one wants to talk about, except some brave journalists like Francis Journot at the site Agora, who shows that France is actually the elephant in the EU room.

My translation of the opening paragraph of this extraordinary article follows:

 

The French State’s public debt has reached 6 trillion euros, equivalent to 5 years of tax receipts and nearly 300% of GDP. The process of extravagant financial operations [tentative rendition of cavalerie financière, see below] on the public debt that are available to the government since the banking law of Jan 3, 1973 exposes France more than ever to the volatility of the financial markets and to a default. More-confidential commitments, off the balance sheet and allowed by the State, for payment of retirement pensions of government employees and the like, could also prove impossible to meet in the long run. An exit from the EU could eventually be the only way out of a fraudulent system that is threatening to blow up. [my highlighting] [original text below]

 

This debt has been constantly fed by new loans to ensure reimbursement of the elderly and their interests, as well as new deficits. The amounts kicked down the road in this way are far greater than those payable by the Greeks. But the off-the-books debt is no less than the debt shown on the books. The author makes it clear, citing authorities, that this debt could never be paid without major growth through new investment in industry. Some of the debt is owed to the IMF and hence, represents US exposure.

One rendition of the term I rendered as “extravagant financial operations” is “Ponzi scheme” and that is just a more direct way of saying the same thing.

Now, if a Grexit is a threat to the integrity of the EU, a Frexit would spell certain doom to the already-shaky entity, and the entire globe is exposed.

 

Original text:

La dette publique de l’État français atteint 6 000 milliards d’euros, équivaut à plus de vingt années de recettes fiscales et près de 300% du PIB. Le processus de cavalerie financière de la dette publique auquel les gouvernements ont recours depuis la loi bancaire du 3 janvier 1973, expose plus que jamais la France à la volatilité des marchés financiers et au défaut de paiement. Des engagements plus confidentiels, hors-bilan et portés par l’État, pour le paiement des pensions de retraites des fonctionnaires ou assimilés, pourraient également s’avérer, à terme, impossibles à honorer. Une sortie de l’UE pourrait s’imposer comme l’unique voie de sortie d’un système de cavalerie qui menace d’exploser.

End quote

 

Cavalerie financière is a fraudulent financial practice based on the discrepancies between the amounts and periods for recording income and outflows to mask a failure between resources and debt owed. Other possible renditions include “can kicking” and “Ponzi scheme.”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

“Holy” matrimony administered by a Satanic state

June 30th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank  June 30, 2015

Karl Denninger, who normally writes about secular stuff like economics, just wrote a particularly thought-provoking opinion piece on the Supreme Court decision by which that body, intended to be part of the judiciary, took a stab at legislating. Another one. The article was posted by Stephanie Jasky at FedUpUSA:

http://www.fedupusa.org/2015/06/scotus-steps-in-it-gay-marriage/

A long time ago, Steph had said that the notion of the government getting involved in marriage was a scam and that marriage should remain outside of government institutions.

It sounded so outlandish — and also a bit libertarian, that I just filed it away, not knowing how to respond. I tended to disagree but didn’t know why.

Since yesterday, this whole idea of cutting the government out of the marriage business takes on a whole new luster.

I am no longer in a position to disagree and can’t think of any reason why I should.

After all, the government says that the marriage contract can be broken unilaterally under the so-called no-fault law. So unlike any other contract known in law, it is really not a contract at all, but only a scam, because it lacks enforcement potential. Worse, once you put your neck in the government’s noose, and then once the other half files for and gets that divorce, the one with the most property before the marriage is the one who loses, often big time. Men generally lose anyway because mom gets the kids and juicy child support checks, which she is in no way obliged to spend on your kids. She can be the most abusive and negligent mom in the world but she will almost certainly get the kids and the monthly checks. That’s hardwired into the system.

There is something, well, conservative about us conservatives. If it was done a certain way before when we were kids, then that is how it should be done now and forevermore. But what was done before was often part of a desperately wicked system. We just didn’t see it.

It was called “holy matrimony,” but it was contracted within the framework of a mostly atheistic state, which by now has gone Satanic. And even if the officials involved were not in their majority atheists, at least the laws that they were bound by were generally not in any way motivated by Christian principles.

So what was so holy about a marriage certificate?

Nothing. Not even if the ceremony was performed by a priest or pastor or whatever.

None of the Christian spirit of the officiating cleric was transferred to the legal document. Thus, the “matrimony” was not holy at all. It was a suckers’ transaction, a contract of vows that the law had no intention of enforcing, a trap intended only to spread the wealth.

I do not make recommendations. However, I see no wrong whatsoever in performing a wedding in a church, particularly one that has freed itself of its 501(C) status, but without any involvement by the state whatsoever. You can try to stigmatize the children born in that arrangement as “illegitimate” if you like. But you can’t fool kids. They know who mom and dad are and they will generally assign more legitimacy to a good couple of parents than they will to any soulless state apparatus.

I realized a while back that the tax exemption for churches was merely a subterfuge to make religion subservient to the State.

There is no Biblical basis for this system, and its intended result is that pastors, a timid lot to begin with (with some notable exceptions, like Chuck Baldwin), are afraid to speak out against officially endorsed sin.

Now Christians are at a crossroads.

We now have the opportunity and a compelling motive to break away from the Satanic state. Or we can just fold as we have always done in the past.

One thing is certain: unless we take drastic measures to protect marriage and traditional Christianity as a whole, your pastor or priest will someday be forced to perform gay weddings. Your marriage will then be on a par with something recognized since the earliest times as wicked. The symbolism is unavoidable.

And since most clerics are liberal left-wingers or simply spiritually squishy to begin with, they will pretend that they are just being meek as bidden by Jesus. Aww, how sweet… it is not!

Pastors all over the US are boldly saying “no” to the Supreme Court abomination. But how many of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and part with their precious tax deduction?

Those who do will certainly be part of that remnant of the end times as mentioned in the Bible. The rest may share the same fate as unbelievers in the Last Judgment.

 

SCOTUS Steps In It (Gay Marriage)

carlin-privileges

 

Part I

So we got the gay marriage opinion and there was much rejoicing.

How foolish you are…

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

 

Half of this is right. The second half is an outrage, but no surprise, and it will have ramifications those on both sides of this argument are not going to like.

First, let me point out to those on the religious right of the aisle: You deserved this decision. More than 15 years ago I wrote a number of letters to the Catholic Archdiocese urging them to ignore state marriage licenses — in fact, to deliberately eschew them and instead celebrate only Catholic marriages. That is, no license, period. If you wanted to have a civil document of some sort, then go see the judge. For a religious marriage, go see a Priest. Never the twain shall meet, for the simple reason that Catholic (and most other Christian sectarian) teaching on marriage was irreconcilable with civil marriage and its provisions and thus by affixing a signature and certification to such a document the Church was profaning itself.

Well, if you fornicate on the Altar you cannot complain when the lightning bolt shows up out of the blue, and it did. Congratulations to all of those Christian faiths that earned what was delivered to you today.

Let us look at the facts, most-specifically the fact that marriage was not subject to “license” until it became fashionable to constrain who could marry. Historically marriages were “recorded” in the family Bible — and nowhere else. Marriage laws in the United States arose from the desire to exclude certain marriage choices, most-particularly those who would choose partners that were of the “wrong” color or heritage. Forcing the celebrants to appear before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court was a suitable means of enforcing racism.

But this is not the evil found in the decision today. No, that evil is found in the destruction of federalism, the foundation of this nation. This decision puts a nearly-final nail in that coffin, for it embraces not federalism and its principles but rather unification — that is, the principle that there is no union of 50 states but rather one federal government and thus one state, with the arbitrary boundaries between states being mere lines on a map.

The Court could have reached a decision that a marriage contracted in one state had to be respected in the others. That’s Federalism and, incidentally, disrespect of that principle, which was foundational to this Republic and remains so, is the primary reason the Civil War was undertaken.

In other words that I get married to another man in California and then travel to Florida (where such is not legal) doesn’t mean that Florida has to marry two men. It does, however, mean that Florida has to recognize that under California law we’re married. It was the willful refusal to honor this in the 1860 time frame that led states to break away and declare that they were no longer part of the United States and this sort of decision risks that exact same thing happening again.

No, if it does it won’t be because of two gay people demanding a marriage “license.” Rather it will be because some state, say, New York, will demand that Florida impose New York’s tax and regulatory schemes on its population!

Far-fetched? Not at all – this is already being proposed under so-called “Internet sales tax” changes, where nexus is discarded as meaningful and instead a national tax scheme is being cooked up.

So to the religious right who slept with the devil and then got it up the pooper as a consequence we can add all those people dancing in the streets in glee — your turn to get in line and find that it comes long, dry and hard is on tap, and I assure you that the consequence will not be to your liking.

Both groups have made a grave mistake, and unfortunately the outcome may be similar to that in 1861.

 

Part II

None of you who have turned your avatar “rainbow” on Facebook appear to have actually read the Supreme Court opinion.

Why are you celebrating without understanding what you are celebrating? Are you a thinking individual or are you a member of a mob? If the latter, get the hell away from me; you’re dangerous, to be blunt, and I want you nowhere near my person or property. To the extent I can do so I will distance myself from your person and behavior as both are destructive to both self and others.

Incidentally, if it matters, I don’t care who you sleep with. Not only do I have many associates and people I like a great deal who are gay, I also have several friends who are poly-amorous.

But let’s look at first the holding, and then the argument the court accepted in issuing it:

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

 

Now from the opinion itself:

 

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way.

The new and widespread discussion of the subject led other States to a different conclusion. In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held the State’s Constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). After that ruling, some additional States granted marriage rights to same sex couples,either through judicial or legislative processes.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

 

I could easily write the longest Ticker of my career as a writer simply by quoting these passages. If you wish to go and look you will find 86 cited examples of the word “rights” in the opinion (and dissents.)

I need not do so; these are illustrative of the fact that the Opinion itself, and thus the court itself, lied, and you’re lapping it up.

A right is a thing that you inherently possess as a consequence of being human. You have the right to free speech. You have the right to freedom of religion. You have the right to keep personal effects, such as papers and property, free from unreasonable search and seizure. You have the right to personal property which may not be taken from you by the government without compensation at its fair market value.

At the moment any entity requires you to obtain a license you no longer have a right — you have a privilege.

The States assert that you may exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle upon the roads if you obtain a driver license. The States assert that you may exercise the privilege of operating a business if you obtain a business license. You may exercise the privilege of carrying a firearm in some states if you obtain a concealed carry permit (a blatantly unconstitutional requirement as the right to keep and bear arms is delineated in the Second Amendment.) I may exercise the privilege of using many of the range lands around Eglin Air Force Base for recreational purposes if I first obtain a permit from Jackson Guard. There are literally thousands of privileges that are all predicated on obtaining a license or permit and none of them are in fact rights, as a right requires no permission from anyone to exercise.

Note carefully that list of cites above. You need no license to engage in sexual activity (such would be deemed outrageous on its face); that is one of your rights. You also need no license to produce a child (unless you live in China, which recognizes no right to procreation!)

The Supreme Court had two options that would have actually addressed the complaints before it without doing what it did. It could have responded to the second part of its holding only, specifically:

 

to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

 

That is Federalism. It is also well within the Supreme Court’s remit and would address the issue in full as put before the court. If you desired to get married as a gay person then you could travel to a state that allows same (much as many people do when they elope to Vegas) and the state you reside in, no matter which one it was, would have to recognize the lawfulness of your act. This, incidentally, is why if you commit a crime in one state and go somewhere else that the act you undertook isn’t illegal the first state can demand (and will win) your extradition to stand trial; this is what Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly provides:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

Respect for the laws of one State, however, does not compel the other State to pass the same laws. This is why income and sales tax rates (and items to be taxed) vary, it is why speed limits vary among states, it is why building codes vary, it is why zoning varies, and it is why business license requirements vary. So long as they do not implicate rights the States are free to form their own legislation, but they must respect enforcement of laws in other States where the conduct in question takes place within that other State, despite someone attempting to evade enforcement by fleeing the jurisdiction.

The other legitimate (and indeed logical) option before the Court was to find that since marriage is a conflation of and implicates a whole list of other rights that the entire process of “licensing” is facially invalid, striking “marriage laws” across the entire country.

Instead what the Supreme Court has legislated is the complete destruction of the entire list of alleged rights they have cited in their opinion! They have reduced your right to co-habitate with, sleep with, procreate with and be intimate with to a privilege, and then have mandated that the States issue licenses to you in order to practice this privilege — but only to the extent that this privilege is extended to everyone else!

For this — the destruction by judicial fiat of fundamental human rights that have resided in each human being for thousands of years, reducing them to mere privilege which now can be revoked or limited, provided that everyone has to live under the same revocation, a huge part of this country cheers?

Government never arrogates to itself power it does not intend to use. If you want examples of what turning marriage into a privilege, along with all the other “rights” attached that the USSC cited will turn into, look toward China where you need a license (permission) to have a child and will be denied permission for a second one, with varying sanctions applied if you do it anyway. Interference of this sort in marriage and everything associated with it, so long as it is equally applied to everyone, was just made legal by this Supreme Court decision since we now have acceded to fundamental human rights being turned into privileges with their associated license.

If you are one of the people cheering this crap here is my response to you and your blatant and outrageous stupidity — indeed, your acceptance of and cheering for the largest single destruction of civil rights ever undertaken in the history of this nation:

Get off my lawn.

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Will US foreign policy start a mega-war?

June 29th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank  June 29, 2015

A friend just asked me this:

So, my biggest question is, is our foreign policy leading the world into a conflict which will make WWI and WWII look like a slight disagreement, and who would stand to benefit if that were to happen?

 

If a Neoconservative like John McCain is elected, we could well find ourselves heading into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, but Russia comes in a package with China. Both are nuclear powers and each one has nukes that can wipe out the entire US in a matter of minutes. Even if the US launched a preemptive strike and wiped out all major Russian cities, that would leave all the nuclear armed Russian (and possibly Chinese) subs in the ocean off our coast. Human life would essentially be wiped out. Even Soros and Kissinger, two well known war mongers and Russia bashers, recently warned that the Us must be very careful in confronting Russia.

So are we heading into such a conflict?

Our escalation in Ukraine is dangerous. Most Americans would probably say “but we must do something because the Russians want to take over the world.”

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese want to take over the world. Their mental code is much different than ours. Putin has tried and is still trying for a rapprochement with the West but is constantly rebuffed.

But is that his fault, you might ask?

Back when the US was negotiating with the Soviet Union to integrate a non-communist Russia into the Western world, the US promised that NATO would never expand toward the Russian border and would not go into former Warsaw Pact countries.

After the agreement was made, US-dominated NATO almost  immediately broke that agreement and set up a missile base at the Russian border.

The Russians protested and they eventually moved the base. However, they violated the agreement not to go into Warsaw Pact countries, some of which are now NATO members, in contravention of that agreement.

The Russians quietly tolerated this. (But shouldn’t they trust us? NATO bombed Libya and killed Ghadaffi, and that country is still in shambles and refugees from there are pouring into the Italian island of Lampedusa and from there to the rest of Europe. They are Muslims and most go on welfare and stay on welfare. After the Iraq war, Assyrian Christians started abandoning the country immediately to escape severe persecution and death. We invaded but could not control the situation, ever. After our involvement in Egyptian spring, Christians again got the shaft. Here is my own personal glimpse into the aftermath: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140724

Then US NGOs started stirring up a revolt in Ukraine in order to bring down a democratically elected government. Not a good government, but then where is there a good government in Europe? (A huge scandal has broken in UK showing that an incredible number of high ranking leaders there have been involved in an enormous pedophile ring. Credible witnesses are assembled but the government is impeding trials. One of the alleged perps is in his 80s and they are now claiming he is too senile to stand trial, and all that sort of nonsense). Yet we are supposed to think that Ukraine’s overthrown president is somehow more corrupt than other leaders and that the US had a right to infringe on their sovereignty, just as it did in all the color revolutions before that.

How do we know that the US was behind the Maidan coup?

For at least these reasons:

 

1–Assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland said so in a speech, and she said you and I paid $5 billion of our hard earned money to start this coup.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

2–Obama admitted “brokering power transition” in Ukraine: http://rt.com/op-edge/228379-obama-power-transition-ukraine/

3–George Soros admitted to Fareed Zakarias on national TV that his foundation was in on this as well. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140530

ZAKARIA: […deletia…] … during the revolutions of 1989 [you] funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
SOROS: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now. [my highlighting]

4–As if we need further proof of Soros’ involvement hacked emails further corroborate this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

5–Independent reports: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

 

So what about Russia’s involvement? There were allegations, but the Ukrainian prosecutors could find no evidence: http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/5466-ukraines-prosecutors-have-no-proof-of-kremlin-aide-alleged-involvement-in-maidan-events.html

 

Nuland’s cartoonish description of “peaceful” demonstrators in Maidan “singing hymns” stands in sharp contrast to the fact that 18 police officers were shot and killed. These police were killed, obviously, by the side that Nuland called “peaceful.”

Did the other side perpetrate violence? Probably. But it was after all, a revolution. Bottom line: The US narrative is full of holes and our further escalation of the conflict is folly.

Finally, there is video evidence that Eastern Ukrainians were bombarded from the air:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140724

How do we know that it was the US-supported Ukrainian government?

Almost all of the refugees went to Russia:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12212

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4HJGdTih4

Nothing tells the story like this.

Best,

Don

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button