Laigle’s Forum

By Donald Hank

Ronald Reagan is always held up as the gold standard in Republican elections, and everyone pays lip service to the Gipper, but the fact is, while all candidates claim to be his reincarnation and talk about Reagan, no one talks like him any more.

They can’t. America has been emasculated. While reluctantly acknowledging Reagan’s legacy as the best president we have had for a century by all criteria, the homo lobby has at the same time made Reagan anathema. They will never forgive him for saying that AIDS was sent by God to punish people for the sin of homosexuality.

As long as that mentality is present–my estimate is about 30 more years–there can be no remedy to the attrition of conservatism.

Why 30 more years?

Because the homo lobby, under the guidance of men and women who despise America, has already been amazingly successful for at least 5 years already, and 35 years is about how long it took for most Americans to finally see through radical feminism. Bad people with fool-proof Gramscian psychic cages to lock up people’s minds can always hold sway for about that long at least in our country, where people are easily led astray by their irrational fears and their misplaced pity for any wolf claiming to be an underdog.

But even after that, the homo lobby will not be completely beaten down. Hate crime laws will be in place and pastors who speak out against homosexuality will still have to go underground or face fines and/or jail time or loss of tax exempt status.

I base that prediction, again, on the success that radical feminism has had in entrenching itself in the American psyche. Even now, with the feminist movement in more-or-less permanent disrepute, Wade-Roe still holds sway, and anti-father legislation and jurisprudence is standard in “family” courts, where fathers almost never get custody or even shared custody and are routinely evicted from their homes on flimsy to zero evidence of wife abuse, while being treated as walking wallets in terms of “child” support.

The label was “wife abuser,” the pretext was “protection of mothers” or “protection of women,” and the establishment of abuse could be predicated on tenuous evidence.

On the absurd pretext of “protecting” their group and with the nuclear option of the “homophobe” tag, the small but vociferous group of homo-leftists will completely dominate America on behalf of the anti-traditional left for many years to come. And that will make it impossible for another Reagan to surface.

Americans, and in fact, westerners in general, are increasingly deficient in the use of logic and comparison techniques, unable to see that one group of leftists well-trained in mind-control techniques is equivalent to any other group of leftists well-trained in these techniques.

Yet it is really quite simple in the present case. The fact is, not only are the techniques the same, but the absurdity of the accusations is similar. The radical changing of definitions is a trade mark of the Left. The feminists changed the definition of child rearing and marriage, and in fact, they even changed the name, calling marriage “patriarchy,” in order to create the impression that marriage had been devised as a way for men to subjugate and enslave women, when in fact, the whole idea has always been to anchor the wayward male to the family precisely for the purpose of protecting women and children. And of course, they changed the definition of abuse in the minds of the public but more importantly, of judges and legislators, who started defining abuse as anything done by a male to a female that the female herself called abuse. Thus the definition was malleable, varying from case to case. A woman could get a restraining order simply by claiming that she felt threatened. In my ten years of work with Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, I had numerous cases of men whose restraining orders showed no documentation of abuse (I personally read one, on file at the local courthouse, in which the man was accused of restraining his wife after she had “hit him on the arm” (her words) while he was driving). I learned of one man who was evicted from his home by a judge when his wife told the judge that she had a habit of meeting men on the internet and traveling to meet them for sex. She said her husband had found out about these liaisons, and although he had not in any way threatened her or abused her, she felt that now that he knew, he might conceivably do her some sort of harm. That was enough for the judge, who ordered him out of his home and ordered child support payments for the wife, even though the wife had sent their child to live with her mother.

The anti-family Left, having saturated the law field with anti-male legislation, is now persecuting the religious orthodox (who also threaten their antifamily notions) in an equally absurd way wherever “hate” laws exist. Remember that Pastor Aka Green was tried in Sweden for the “hate” crime of preaching from the forbidden parts of the Bible that denounce homosexual behavior (and threatened with what would have amounted to a life sentence), while his fellow Christians have been fined heavily for speaking against homosexual behavior and gay marriage in Canada.

Part of the problem with the attrition of traditional voters is that few see the whole picture. For example, my fellow defenders of males have often myopically treated radical feminism and the anti-father courts and legislators as though they were isolated problems. Some of these same people have been blind to the intimate link between anti-male policies and other anti-traditional policies. They can see that males are abused in “family” court but they can’t quite see what that has to do with gay marriage. Many leaders of the men’s movement are thus for gay marriage.

That will never work. The enemy is the same, namely, virulent anti-traditional, anti-family Leftism, and it doesn’t matter whether it is currently attacking the family by removing the father or by replacing the father with another woman posing as the second “mother.” The results and the motivation are the same with radical feminism as they are with the radical gay agenda. In both cases, the child is hurt by losing contact with one or both biological parents and by losing the opportunity to experience committed heterosexual female and male role models vital to child development. In the case of the radical feminist paradigm of the single mom/disenfranchised biological father, I had shown previously that, statistically, children are abused disproportionately by the men who are not their fathers and have been introduced into their lives by their divorced or single mother.

This anti-traditional component of the Left is, ultimately, why gay “couples” are so eager to adopt children (evidence, not to mention common sense, suggests this idea is dangerous to child welfare).

By and large, it is not these naïve souls themselves, but rather their script writers on the left, who are behind the evil scheme of replacing traditional family with whatever happens to be handy. In most cases, their desire is not to harm children but simply to assert their lifestyle and to convince themselves of the moral authority to follow their hedonistic impulses wherever these might lead them. And this idea was not born spontaneously. It was scripted by the agenda makers.

I wish I could end this column on a positive note, but that is hard to do at this juncture in our history. Of course, there is no direct harm in sight with some of the Republican candidates, but neither of the 2 front runners leaves me with a sense of comfort either.

Romney once supported gay marriage, but says he has had a conversion. He is at least a stronger conservative in other areas than McCain.

Depending on what part of his mouth McCain is speaking out of, he has no qualms about gay marriage. That means that our front runner, who believes Reagan has endorsed him posthumously, is blissfully ignorant about the one issue of our time that, because of its link to “hate” laws, can literally determine whether the First Amendment will survive.

Of course, the McCain of McCain-Feingold was never too fond of that amendment anyway.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.