I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

Anthony Horvath is a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, Christian apologist, pro-life author and speaker, and publisher.  To learn more about his latest project aimed at combating the philosophies discussed in the essay below and how you can help, click here.

Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, joked, “I can see Russia from my house.”

I can see the next holocaust from my house, and it is no joke.

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors.  Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals.  In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them.  And that was in America.

In a book written in 1920 by two German experts and applauded by American experts, it was argued that it was allowable to destroy the ‘life unworthy of life.’

Who was regarded as ‘life unworthy of life’?  The handicapped, the disabled, the diseased, the mentally ill, the ‘feeble-minded.’  Really, just about anyone the experts decided was ‘unfit’ could be deemed ‘unworthy of life.’  When eugenics morphed into the Holocaust, many of its proponents quietly went to ground.  Some asked ‘What went wrong?’ but few arrived at the right answer.

Fast forward sixty years.  Enter Julian Savulescu.

You probably don’t know who Julian Savulescu is, just as your average American off the street in 1910 wouldn’t have known who Charles Davenport was.  You probably don’t know who Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are, just as your average American in 1920 wouldn’t have known who Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding were.

But you may recall a few months ago when two ‘ethicists’ quietly submitted an article in an ethics magazine arguing that the logic of abortion does not cease after the child has fully exited the birth canal.  For all the reasons that abortion on demand was justified, so too, the two ‘ethicists’ Giubilini and Minerva argued, was infanticide.  Of course, they preferred to call it ‘after-birth abortion.’

I hope that nobody misunderstands me:  Giubilini and Minerva were correct in their analysis.  If they are to be faulted for anything, it is for stopping at the newborn.

When people heard about this article there was outrage, and not a little of it spilled over onto the journal that printed the article in the first place.  That journal was “The Journal of Medical Ethics.”  Flabbergasted, the editor defended the publication of the article, saying:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”

Yes, that is quite right.  The arguments presented were not new, and have been ‘presented repeatedly.’

He continued, “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

This embattled editor of a renown journal of medical ethics is named Julian Savulescu. Continue reading

Why the media are out of touch with reality

No science used by the elites, just consensus of academics.

by Don Hank

The report at the NPR web site tending to exonerate Palin for her gaffe about Paul Revere is typical of how arguments are presented in the media these days. You will note that there is not a shred of new data here, just a prof’s opinion. (It should be clear that NPR is only throwing a sop to conservatives here as a way of staving off the effort to defund them).

Americans have stopped asking for facts and are accepting opinions of the “educated.”

We are no more educated now than we were in 1256, when Roger Bacon enumerated, in Opus Majus, the 4 causes of error:

authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.

In the case of the mainstream media (and also in most of the careers we insist on calling “professions”), it is obvious that all of these factors are involved in our grievous mis-education and the web of unsubstantiated myths we call the truth.

Roger Bacon then outlined, in later parts of this series, an almost perfect representation of what we today call the scientific method.

However, nota bene: this method, while still generally used in the hard sciences, is all but totally ignored by academicians in other disciplines, such as psychology, journalism, economics, etc, whose practitioners nonetheless pretend to rely on science. If in fact they did so, they would use some form of the scientific method as outlined by Bacon and as refined by later philosophers in arriving at conclusions and decisions.

In fact they only rely on a consensus of academics, whom they trust implicitly for some reason that they would be hard put to articulate.

Indeed, if you ask one of these practitioners by what cognitive mechanism they arrive at their conclusions and make their decisions, they will be at a loss for words, other than to quote some “authority.”

It’s like:

[such and such an academician] said it, I believe it and that settles it.

Yet, they fail to recognize that they are in fact adherents of a religious cult. They really don’t understand the tiny world that has been presented to them by their fellows as the universe, they can’t articulate what they believe, and they are therefore increasingly isolated from everyone as they grow older.

This is why old professionals often die lonely and miserable, not knowing to what it is they have dedicated a life of service, or whether it was in fact service at all or just effort expended on behalf of an unseen soulless ruling class.

Pro-abort, pro-‘gay’ marriage Duke U prof threatens to sic cops on detractors

The following commentary titled “The technique of reverse labeling” reflects a situation that is so absurd as to be almost laughable – that is, if it weren’t for the harm that is being done to at least one persecuted Christian, our good friend Julio Severo, who is in hiding thanks to a Marxist government that criminalizes all public speech unfavorable to homosexuals.

First, please read Mr. de Carvalho’s commentary on this and then my email to the professor who wishes to harm Julio even more. I had originally hoped Professor Nicolelis would respond, but he has chosen to ignore my email.

Pastor Severo is a perfect example of how a Christian minister who wants to help homosexuals break away from their dangerous lifestyle (70% of AIDS cases are active male homosexuals) is persecuted by influential Leftists who want to make sure they never break away and remain trapped. The death of these unfortunate people seems to make no difference at all to the callous Brazilian Left, which also wholeheartedly supports the murder of the unborn.

The fact is, these same leftists who want to keep homosexuals trapped in their unwanted lifestyle are the real homophobes, despite the fact that they falsely label others that way.

Emails for Dr Nicolelis if you desire an explanation for his actions:


and colleagues (be polite):


Don Hank

The technique of reverse labeling

by Olavo de Carvalho

Miguel Nicolelis is a neuroscience teacher at Duke University (USA), founder of the Edmond & Lilly Safra Neuroscientific Institute (Macaíba, RN) and member of the Brazilian and French Academies of Sciences. Added to that notable curriculum was his recent appointment by Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Viomundo website, directed by journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha, now introduces him in a still more attractive light, claiming the scientist is a defenseless victim of a vast hate and fear mongering campaign waged by the eternally abominable “extreme right.”

Shocked and intimidated by the murderous virulence of the campaign, Prof. Nicolelis, in a tone of spurious sincerity distinguishing him as an unconditional follower of the free and democratic debate, warns against the dangers of ideological radicalization:

“Your political, ideological opponent starts to be seen as your enemy. And that enemy is subject to any kind of punishment, even death. I cannot imagine that those people spreading hate, revenge and violent messages can at the same time be Christians.”

But, after all, what did the murderous campaign consist of? It consisted of two things: Firstly, a ten-line story, published at the Rorate Coeli website on January 5 (see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/pope-names-pro-abortion-and-pro-gay.html), stating that Prof. Nicolelis is a fervent defender of abortion and the gay agenda (and also, as of last year, of the candidacy of radical socialist Dilma Rousseff). His presence in an institution linked to the Catholic Church is therefore a little strange. Then, an article written by American journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, published on the website Last Days Watchman (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/defender-of-for-abortion-and-homosexualist-police-appointed-to-vaticans-to) and later reproduced with or without additions and comments on a few Christian websites, among them the Brazilian version of Lifesitenews, Notícias Pró-Família, administered by Brazilian writer Julio Severo (I will speak about him later on). Hoffman, who is a Catholic, commented, “Pope Benedict XVI is a staunch defender of the right to life and of family values, and it is unlikely that he was aware of Nicolelis’ record when he made the appointment.”

Was there some threat, any hint of injurious plans? Prof. Nicolelis admits, “No, there was none.”

In view of these perfectly inoffensive expressions of disagreement, how did Prof. Nicolelis react? By debating with his opponents? No way. He himself describes his argumentative procedures:

“My laboratory staff contacted Duke University, warned about those websites and the university police have already begun to monitor the case. The security of my laboratory was reinforced… Nobody enters there without going through security procedures.”

And he cautions: at the first threatening sign in Brazil, he will call the Federal Police immediately.

Among the potential aggressors of Prof. Nicolelis denounced by the Viomundo website, one has already been put under control. Julio Severo, wanted by Brazilian authorities for the heinous crime of having stated and insisted that homosexuality is a sin and curable, is hidden abroad, moving from one country to another, living in extreme poverty with a wife and four small children. Journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha mentions that fact with evident contentment. The Fórum website, by columnist Luis Nassif (http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/homofobia-em-preto-e-branco), also celebrates it as a sign that Brazilian democracy is progressing.

The logical premises forming the basis of Prof. Nicolelis’ statements and the reports of the Viomundo and Forum websites could not be more evident:

1) Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2) An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under imminent attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

The brutally exaggerated reaction is expected to prompt the distinguished public to believe piously that the violent individuals are those who expressed opinions, not those who mobilized against them the armed forces of the repressive State system.

If the reader wanted a local illustration of what I have written previously on the technique of reverse labeling, this is it.

The constant and obsessive use of that technique is one of the most trivial manifestations of the general inversion of reality, characteristic of the revolutionary mentality.

Not by coincidence, but very significantly, Prof. Nicolelis had been railing some time ago against the “hysterical right.” Hysteria, by definition, is a hyperbolic reaction to some imaginary and false provocation. Therefore, when Prof. Nicolelis reacts hysterically, it is the others who are hysterical.

Translated by Julio Severo. Reviewed by Don Hank.

Portuguese version of this article: The technique of reverse labeling

Spanish version of this article:  La técnica de la rotulación inversa

Source: Diário do Comércio

Divulgation: Julio Severo in English


My email to Nicolelis:

Dear Dr. Nicolelis,

You have recently complained that groups of bloggers, whom you refer to as “ultra-right” have expressed concern that you, while serving as a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, also are outspokenly pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage – positions diametrically  opposed to the Vatican’s positions.

It is not surprising that, given the Vatican’s approval of your membership (despite their disagreement with your views), this annoys you, as you have made clear. What surprises is that, in an interview with Viomundo you express fear that anyone who opposes your viewpoints on these issues is a potential threat to your safety or possibly your life.

I learned of this situation when I was asked to edit a translation by Olavo de Carvalho dedicated to your apparently intransigent viewpoint as expressed in that interview and elsewhere. I had intended to run the translation at my web site (Laigle’s Forum) but I then realized, I do not have a personal quarrel with you and it would perhaps be unfair to run this article before hearing your side of the story.

De Carvalho’s article says that, for you

1—Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2—An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

Obviously, Mr. de Carvalho is being ironic here. But he is conveying the impression, based largely on the aforementioned interview, that you are not in favor of a free debate on certain topics.

My question to you is:

Is an objective debate on homosexuality or abortion, for example, possible in your world or is Mr. de Carvalho correct in his ironic statement about your inflexibility in such areas? Such inflexibility would certainly seem incompatible with a questioning, scientific mind and with the image you otherwise project as a scientist dedicated to open and uninhibited inquiry. I therefore want to give you a chance to respond so that my readers can hear your side as well.

Thank you for your consideration.


Don Hank

Editor, Laigle’s Forum

Darwinists’ behavior supports creationists’ arguments

How Darwinist activists prove creationists’ argument

Don Hank

Early last year, I wrote a synopsis of “Signature in the Cell” which was posted both at Laigle’s Forum and at Amazon, and shortly after that I was invited to participate in an Amazon forum discussing the book.

The “scientists” I was debating with kept diverting attention away from the main topic — i.e., the absurdly high odds against the cell having “evolved” randomly. Stephen Meyer says mathematician William Dembski calculated that the chances of all the amino acids of a cell appearing in the correct sequence were 1 in 10 to the 41,000th power. On top of that, cells need machines to transport components from one part of the cell to the other, and these machines (organelles) are indispensable. Thus, the amino acid sequence and the cell machines would have had to “evolve” all at once, because without one of these amino acids or without the machines, the cell dies. These odds are insurmountable and no evolutionist can argue for a random evolution of the cell without sounding like an idiot. The only chance they have is to obfuscate, change the thrust of the argument, launch an ad hominem attack on the author and intimidate the debating partner. And this is exactly what they did. For example, they tried to paint Stephen Meyer as a fraud for claiming one of his papers was peer-reviewed that they claimed was not (the fact is, it had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal but was later attacked by the editors when Meyer was recognized as being for intelligent design).

I didn’t back down, did not allow any diversionary tactics, told them Meyer’s antecedents had nothing to do with the legitimate questions he raised and kept re-focusing on this one main issue of the impossibly high odds against Darwinist evolution of the cell. One of the sub-topics was “This book belongs in the religion section,” and I had the cheek to write “All books on microbiology belong in the religion section because they all point to the existence of a Creator.” But I believe the thing that really set them off was my contention that Darwinian evolution is a major pillar in the platform of the political Left.

For whatever reason, I eventually became a target on this forum.

Within a few days after I showed them I was not backing down, someone at Amazon re-activated an old seller account I had closed out 6 months earlier. All of a sudden, a “buyer” showed up and an Amazon rep emailed me saying this buyer was upset because I had not sent him the book he had “bought.” Obviously, Amazon had just re-opened the account without authorization at the time of the debate to harass me, because I had had no further action on the account for 6 months because I had closed it out and did not reopen it or indicate to Amazon that I wished to do so.

I also had linked in the forum to the DVD “Expelled,” which was available at Amazon. Now this movie was a big assault on the evolutionists who control Amazon, because it shows the dirty tricks used by evolutionists to silence ID advocates – people like me. And worse, I was using an anti-evolution material available at Amazon, making them complicit in this assault on them.

So what did some higher power at Amazon do in response to this? I discovered serendipitously that they somehow routed my link to what I suspect was a dummy site that looked exactly like the regular Amazon site and they showed the price of this $20 DVD as $999.99!

I mentioned this harassment at the forum and thanked them for doing it because they had proven that

1–evolutionists can’t debate with reason and logic and therefore need to resort to childish tactics.

2–the harassment of ID proponents detailed in Ben Stein’s DVD “Expelled” was not an exaggeration.

By failing completely to come up with cogent arguments and by instead diverting attention from the thrust of my argument and, failing that, by intimidating and harassing me, they provided me with more evidence against evolution than I could have gotten by reading a dozen books on the topic.

The Left truly is its own worst enemy and ultimately, by its irrational and diabolical tactics, points us to God the Creator more efficiently than any detailed study of natural sciences possibly could. After all, if there is a Satan (the best explanation for such irrational behavior), then there is necessarily a God.

Oh, one more thing. After I wrote this column, I went to Amazon.com to get a link to my review of Meyer’s book, which had gone up early this year and was up throughout the debate.

Although several reviews are still posted there, mine is now missing.

Well, it’s as Ann Coulter once said: You don’t want people like that to like you.

Book review: Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Continuum, New York and London 2010


Edited by John Meadowcroft,

In this eminently readable, intellectually stimulating and compact volume Professor Dennis O’Keeffe does an excellent job of introducing us to Edmund Burke, his life and family, the essence of his most notable works, his parliamentary career and manifesto writing and how apparent contradictions in his own life and philosophy are reconciled in his intellectual and political development.

“No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends.” wrote Winston Churchill another Conservative who took his own Burkean internal conflicts (between landed conservatism and the power of the Empire on the one hand which he sought to preserve and individual emancipation and free trade which he promoted) to the point of twice “crossing the floor” in party allegiance.

In the case of Edmund Burke there were the additional conflicts of an Irish Catholic origin (although his father had converted to Anglicanism some 9 years before Edmund’s birth) and his protests at the demands by the protestant Irish Parliament of Irish Catholics on the one hand and on the other his Quaker education from the age of 12, his attendance at the Protestant Trinity College Dublin and his life long Anglicanism and admiration of the English Protestant polity based on the 1689 settlement and the preservation of the British Empire. The latter however never prevented him from espousing (for their time) radical views about slavery, economic corruption in India, discriminatory legislation in Ireland and sympathy for American Colonists whose freedom-loving independence of nature he identified as being too similar to their cousins in Britain for conflict to be a wise course of action.

Like most solidly based intellectual Conservatives Burke began his political life with an interest in radical thought, testing and probing the foundations of a social and economic structure which he would ultimately help to reform and defend – dissecting in Burke’s case the advances of the Enlightenment into the welcome principles of freedom of thought while rejecting the arid abstractions of excessive rationalism. Like my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman who saw “scientific” Marxism as a “self delusion beyond repair” and became a leading creator of the classical liberal Conservatism of the Thatcher Government so Burke saw that the hubris of de haut en bas French Enlightenment philosophes had led not only to the bloody excesses of the French Revolution but would, as he predicted, lead to the rise of tyrants and bloody revolutions on a vaster international scale in future centuries.

As Sherman ended his political journey fusing classical liberal thought with Conservative principles (a set of principles which even the Labour Government did not dare overtly to unravel) so Burke – having started by editing at Trinity College “The Reformer” and in 1756 writing A Vindication of Natural Society containing ideas hostile to the Church and the political order of the day – ultimately became a philosophical and political pillar of the growing British Empire.

Even at his most critical Burke always sought political balance, seeking to reform and preserve rather than to petulantly tear down for he saw in a just “natural development” of power in proportion to responsibility that social and economic progress which the totalitarian revolutionaries would for ever exclude as they swept aside not only religious and aristocratic leadership but religious and social foundations. With his cousin William Burke he wrote in 1757 “An Account of the European Settlements in America” in which he praised the “independence” of the “ordinary sort”, the free trade which allowed them to flourish and their aristocratic leadership – all ensuing, Burke thought, from the 1689 Settlement which provided a healthy balance between Government, Monarchy and Parliament whose sole justification was its accountability to the people. How Burke would have condemned those 20th century British Parliamentarians who bypassed the true sovereigns in European Treaty Law to undermine their Parliament and nation!

It was in that vein that he wrote in 1770 (having previously formed the “New Whigs” from both Tory and Whig dissidents and writing their manifesto) “Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents” opposing George III’s Royal encroachment on Government. We must note how that Crown Prerogative has nowadays been usurped by successive British Governments under Treaty Law to sign away the voters sovereign rights. “The Commons answered to the People and not the King”, was the essence of Burke’s attack then – just as today the democratic nationists seek to re-assert the power of the true sovereigns (the people) over an out of control political class which delegated powers to alien control and foreign jurisdiction. Burke wrote:

“The House of Commons can never be a control on other parts of             Government unless they are controlled themselves by their constituents and unless these constituents possess some right in the choice of that Housewhich it is not in the power of that house to take away.”

Since the late 1960s the elected representatives of the British people have conspired to do just that. They have usurped the power of the people as represented in Parliament and transferred most decision making to a different legislature and judiciary through confusing, covert and unconstitutional means: Crown prerogative power, treaty law, administrative law, delegated powers and statutory instruments – all designed to bypass the representatives of the people. And how successful they have been! Burke who predicted the Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins of future centuries would have immediately grasped the more covert and insidious revolutionary aims of Heath, Clarke and Howe, Mitterand, Kohl and Delors as they sacrificed the stability of nationhood on the altar of the corporatist Euro-State!

Burke would I think also have instinctively understood the nature of corporatism – that socialist form of capitalism which underpins both the supranational collective of the Euro-State and the philosophy of “World Government”. When we consider his radical attacks on corporate corruption in India, the encroachment on religious freedom in Ireland by the State and the taxation of the American colonists we see an instinctive rejection of State/corporate power but a defence of nationhood – albeit overseen (in his day) by a benign imperial power. O’Keeffe points out that Burke totally rejected all appeals to Jacobinism or Napoleonism to rectify any injustices. He would have been perhaps most supportive of the more modern idea of “imperial trusteeship” or the idea (if not the reality) of the modern British Commonwealth.

Burke is best know for his 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France and his critique of the rootless rationalism of many Enlightenment philosophers which underpinned, as he saw it, the extreme dismissal of the past and hence the inevitable extreme and bloody consequences. By rejecting the whole in revolutionary fervour the French, said Burke:

“chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society and had everything to begin anew…..by despising everything that belonged to you.”

In effect they engaged not just in destruction but in self-destruction, kicking away the historical platform on which the reformer would base his reforms. O’Keeffe contrasts the optimism of the Liberal Benjamin Constant (who sought to look beyond the excesses of the revolution to an idealistic legacy) with Burke who saw only an orgy of destruction which would feed on its own irrationality and have a permanent deleterious effect on political discourse and ideas.

For Burke the irrational blood letting was ironically caused by an arid rationality. He condemned Voltaire’s anti Christian form of Enlightenment and especially Rousseau’s “general will” and the implicit consent of individuals to a governed society.

“We are not the converts of Rousseau. We are not the disciples of Voltaire……. Atheists are not our preachers: madmen are not our lawgivers”

Burke was right to foresee the fruits of the supposed “reason” of the French Revolution transformed into further brutalities. For 19th century Marxism, as O’Keeffe notes, added “science” to their “rational” certainties and forged a more efficient killing machine. We must be thankful for the resurgence of a new (however tenuous) liberal order to blow away the “scientism” (Hayek) of Marx’s children and establish a philosophy of an Open Society (Popper) for what prosperity and democratic freedoms we now enjoy.

Burke was equally suspicious of “new money” and the industrial and financial worlds which were taking over from landed wealth but O’Keeffe rightly surmises that in time Burke would surely, as a life long reformer, have recognised the advances afforded by industrial development – not least I suggest in employing the landed poor (as the agricultural revolution made their labour redundant) and the slaves for whose freedom Burke had himself campaigned. He would also have appreciated the at least partly successful modern attempts to combine the fruits of Conservative morality and property rights with the liberal virtues of individualism, entrepreneurship and free trade in the 1980s and 1990s.

Burke’s admiration of all things English arose out of his appreciation of the Rule of Law, its gradual Constitutional development (without the equivalent of a French revolution) the balance of powers between nobles, monarchy and Commons, an aristocracy constrained by constitution, the possibility of upward social mobility and the Empire (“Without Freedom it would not be the British Empire” he said.) Burke opposed “any abstract plan of Government or of freedom” – so he would undoubtedly have seen the modern concentration on “human rights” (which unlike freedoms are defined by the rulers, always imperfectly and incompletely and those who define can also take away!) and he would not have been surprised to see that the old Soviet tyranny had no end of stipulated “rights” nor that the builders of “Europe” have used human “rights” and an artificial “citizenship” to undermine the freedom of and freedoms within the nation states.

This excellent volume concludes with a series of summaries of how Burke would have seen and judged the modern political world. “Under Burkean Eyes: Burke and Our present blessings and woes” both seeks to bring Burke up to date and uses practical examples to illustrate his overall philosophy. This part of the book is of course partly surmise and extrapolation and is open to critique but it is a most stimulating provocation to Burkean thought.

O’Keeffe seeks to apply Burke’s “clear feet on the ground reasonableness” to inter alia the crudity of modern political discourse, the West’s triumphalism, the superiority of capitalist economics, the new rise of India, the fatalism of Islam and socialism, Rousseauian Green Movements and man made global warming and the attack on the family – an excellent introduction (as is the entire volume) to the modern relevance of Edmund Burke.

Rodney Atkinson

February 2010

Rodney Atkinson is a political economist and businessman, a former Merchant Banker, Academic and adviser to Ministers in the Thatcher Government. He is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and the author of, inter alia,  Europe’s Full Circle and The Emancipated Society which proposed a fusion of Conservative and Classical Liberal thought on the basis of emancipated versus dependent societies.

In the beginning was the Word

Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”

By Don Hank

Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” may be the most enlightening book I have ever read.

Please try to get it if you haven’t yet. It contains all the answers I have always wanted at my finger tips for debates with Darwinists on the origin of life (I don’t let them drag me into the species change arguments, because I would quickly be in over my head). Having been in thrall to a rigid Darwinist view of life’s origin for many years, I feel liberated about having the origin-of-life side of the theory blown sky high. The origin of life is the key aspect because it gets into the existence of a Creator.

You see, Darwin’s step by step evolution from simple to complex only seems feasible on the macro side — that is, developed plants and animals which develop even further. Darwin could show beyond a doubt that evolution had happened from wolf to dog, for example, under human guidance and from there the idea that such changes would have happened in nature in response to environment was but a stone’s throw. But on the micro level, as researchers found out about the processes in the cell (ever since the early 50s), they discovered that even the simplest cells were factories with the most complex imaginable machinery and computer systems complete with software that for all the world appeared to have been designed and written by someone. The more origin-of-life scientists looked for answers along the accidental Darwinian route, the more confused and baffled they became. The old lightning bolt in the mud theory had failed in the lab and didn’t cut it any more. So much so that today there is absolutely no consensus and the field is in complete disarray. The only scientists who appear to form a consensus are the few dedicated to the notion of intelligent design. But that is a heresy in today’s academe, where intelligence is not allowed because it is eerily reminiscent of that pesky “God delusion” along with its moral code of do’s and don’ts for mankind. Darwin was to have driven a stake in its heart.  Now it was coming back to haunt them.

The heart of Meyer’s book, which will be the chief stumbling block for Darwinists from here to eternity, is the part describing the “CAD-CAM” (CAD=computer assisted design; CAM=computer assisted manufacture) machinery inside the cell that performs gene expression by recognizing and reading the DNA code, written in nucleotide triads, and transcribing and sending the coded specs (for protein synthesis) for translation. In the ribosome (cellular protein factory), the blueprint is then read and implemented, enabling the synthesis of a specific protein to specification by the ribosome based on the information originally contained in the DNA and transferred to the RNA in a different format. Note that the data-bearing DNA, a sort of master copy, is located in a part of the cell far away from the ribosome (factory), so the transcription, for example, isn’t at all like, for example, simply making a carbon copy by just piling 2 sheets of paper on top of each other with a carbon in between and pressing hard as you write or type. Transcription (along with subsequent translation and implementation of the blueprint) is genuinely analogous to a CAD-CAM system, with its own software code.

I suppose that Meyer would groan at this description because I am still grappling with the sticky parts. It is much more complex than this, but you get the idea.

(For an illustration of gene expression in protein building, click here to go to Stephen Meyer’s web site and click on the button at the bottom right to see an amazing animation of the cellular machines at work).

Not to get mired down in detail, but Meyer also mentions machines in the cell that edit the information and others that straighten out the DNA helices and then rewind them once they have been “read” by the RNA.

Oh, BTW, the computer in the cell is capable of processing several times more data than any silicon chip known at this point. Bill Gates is cited as acknowledging this fact.

Meyer makes 4 blockbuster points:  

1 — The message is actually a true code. It is language, it is words. Although in both DNA (original data repository) and RNA (data transmitter), it is in the form of nucleotide triads (called codons), the constituent nucleotide bases constituting the code have no special chemical affinity for the proteins they signify in the code (just as ink has no meaningful chemical affinity for paper that would make certain letters stick to certain parts of a page), so the processes of recognition, transcription and translation involved in making a protein are pure language utilization processes, not chemistry! That makes the “recognition” part quite unobvious and esoteric, requiring a deciphering system that is not based on the chemical properties of the constituent parts (against initial intuitive hypotheses), so that the message borne by the code is independent of any recognizable physicochemical laws–making it a mystery. This fact alone points unequivocally to a designer who started his process with the use of words.

2 — Meyer also makes the point that the protein synthesized by this system (as all proteins in all living cells — even the simplest — are) not only could not exist without the DNA but the DNA could also not exist without the protein (because both the protein and the DNA are both part of the protein synthesis machinery and “software” essential to the manufacture and maintenance of cell constituents). Thus, unlike the chicken-or-the-egg question, there seems to be no way either could have come first. That makes evolution a very tough sell indeed. (One could actually speak of an “evolution delusion” to paraphrase Richard Dawkins).

3 — Besides the living cell, there is nothing known in nature that encodes, decodes, transmits and reads specifications and builds or reproduces machines (living or other) in this computer-like fashion. The only scheme that resembles this enormously complex machinery and computer system is man-made and requires a designer. The designer is logically the default explanation.

4 — Meyer’s colleague, statistical mathematician William Dembski, calculates that the probabilities of the simplest cell producing all the necessary proteins it needs to survive by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 41,000. This probability is so small as to be utterly negligible. In other words, the advent of life on earth was not an accident.

No one who reads this book can come away believing in the standard academic explanation that life came about by accident. Neither, claims Meyer, do many microbiologists and/or origin-of-life scientists, who are either “baffled” or are on his side.

I think this is the final blow to neo-Darwinism, at least intellectually. Now all that remains is break down the intellectual barriers on the campuses that were erected and maintained by the Lilliputians who inhabit and rule them with an iron fist. But that will be the toughest job of all (as shown by Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”). Government, the media and campuses are living proof that no common sense or any relationship with reality is required for corrupt systems to stay in place almost indefinitely and make a majority of the populace believe the Wizard of Oz is real.

Although I love education and learning, I am actually encouraged that colleges are now laying off profs in various places — like California — and enrollment is down. I say that that because learning under the principle of free inquiry is no longer taking place there. (For insight into the sad state of US universities, click on the last link under “Related”).

I hate to say it but I hope colleges get so out of reach that parents, for the time being, stop sending their kids to these indoctrination centers — at least until the colleges start returning to common sense principles.

I believe distance education is the wave of the future and courses that actually prepare for careers — non-government that is, will be the focus again.

Too bad the whole system may have to be destroyed by the bad guys before that can happen.





The out-of-focus debate over homosexual rights

The out-of-focus debate over homosexual rights

by Donald Hank


I have recently gotten into an on-line debate over a statement, attributed to one of the presidential candidates, that the candidate would not be uncomfortable with a “gay” president.

One list member criticized this statement, focusing on homosexuality itself and taking the position that homosexuality is deviant behavior. Another, a professor at a university, became irate at him, taking the position – now familiar in academe – that a person’s orientation, no matter how weird or disgusting, is none of anyone else’s business and is perfectly normal, and attacked the first member for his insensitivity toward homosexual victims of bias. Another emotional debater jumped into the melee, accusing the first member of calling someone an “idiot” who disagreed with him. I did a quick search and failed to find the word “idiot” in that first member’s email.

This micro-debate illustrates just how emotional and irrational our national macro-debate over homosexual behavior has become.

I was urged by one member to respond. My first thought was of my short column Rage, rage, rage against the psychic cage, which points out how the Left uses feigned exaggerated outrage to beat up psychologically on dissidents, and that would certainly be a valid starting point.

But first, let me say that this whole debate misses the main point by a mile.

The main issue in America is the same as that in Europe, where religion is on a collision course with sexual promiscuity and sexual promiscuity is winning, operating under the banner of sexual “liberation” and posing as an innocent victim (just as radical feminism did before it wrecked the American family-what short memories we have!).

It is not just winning, it is driving out religion, as any fool could have foreseen. The arrest of Pastor Aka Green in Sweden a few years back epitomizes this fact. For opposing homosexual behavior in church on biblical grounds, Green faced life in prison! This, plus Canada’s arrest of various opponents of homosexual behavior, including pastors and social activists who base their arguments on medical evidence, shows where we are headed.

But worse, the holocaust against orthodox religion is already here and is ignored by the media, which bodes a horrible future for America short of a miracle. And therein lies the real issue: not the horrendous attack on constitutionally protected religious freedom, but the ominous silence of a tacitly approving press and a nation of sheeplike beings that can only mouth the platitudes of the Left in defense of the “victim” group du jour while ignoring the real victims of their own creation!

In May 2006, Laigle’s Forum was one of the few web sites to report on the ongoing legal battle involving the arrest, in October 2004, of a group of 11 Christians who had protested Philly Pride Presents, a homosexual event. The Christians, who had peaceably and publicly opposed homosexuality on biblical grounds, were charged with a “hate” crime and each faced 47 years in prison-a life sentence for most!-for expressing their faith in public in the “land of the free” and in the city founded by William Penn for the express purpose of offering a haven for people persecuted for their faith. The media, including the “conservative” outlets of Fox News and the radio talk show hosts, almost completely ignored this first major challenge to religious freedom since our founding as a nation.

In another slap in the face to religious (and other) traditions, the California legislature recently banned a school’s making any distinctions based on biological sex. The Alliance Defense Fund worries:

“… if this law is allowed to stand, … Teachers cannot teach that a student’s birth at sex is a student’s true sex… Schools that want to preserve separate gender-separate restrooms and locker rooms will be faced with a choice-either violate the law and refuse to allow boys and girls to enter each others’ facilities or spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build separate facilities for the small number of students who decide they want to pass as the opposite sex.”

This law was passed by people who have bought into the notion that “gay,” lesbian, transgendered and cross dressers are so downtrodden, so targeted by traditionalists (especially Christians) and in such a desperate crisis that they must be given the right to turn society upside down and inside out at taxpayer expense just to prevent some undefined abuse.

Montgomery County school district in Maryland imposes the same kind of teaching policies.

So does Massachusetts, where schools teach that homosexuality is just as valid a sexual choice as any other, at variance with common sense, medical evidence and again, religious teachings. David Parker, the father of a very young boy who was exposed to pro-homosexual teaching in an elementary school in that state, was arrested at a school board meeting for protesting the fact that he was not notified of such teaching -notification that is mandated by law!  Parker was led away in handcuffs for demanding rights to which he was entitled by state law.

While homosexuality is protected, homosexuals themselves are not. None of these school districts that mandate the normalization of homosexuality and the false teaching that it is genetically determined or otherwise inevitable ever mention – or are even allowed to mention – statistics showing the health hazards of homosexual behavior, such as the fact that 70% of AIDS sufferers are practicing homosexual males, or evidence that it is often caused by dysfunctional family backgrounds and sexual abuse.

Where did all this madness come from?

In order to understand that, you must have a basic understanding of the Left, something an alarmingly small percentage of Americans have. The above-cited column Rage, rage, rage against the psychic cage provides some insight.

It is also enormously helpful to read about the Leftist mindset, as summarized in my recent article Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind. De Carvalho is probably the only person who has found the common threads running through the Left since its earliest history and has, for the first time, offered a cogent definition of the Left, a group that has defied definition due to the extreme divergence of its views, platforms, agendas and policies over time and from region to region.

Further, to understand how the Left operates specifically in today’s America in an attempt to sell homosexuality and suppress religion, you absolutely must read the first chapter of “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian, entitled “Selling gay rights to America.”

For those interested in posting comments at Laigle’s Forum or in emailing me with criticisms of this column, particularly those focusing on the threadbare notion that “gays” are victims of bias in dire need of special protection and that expressing the viewpoint that homosexual behavior (nota bene: I did not say “homosexual orientation” or “homosexual tendencies”!) should not be criticized, I am going to set the bar, requiring that you do the following:

Before you post your critique, please answer these questions:

1-How is it that those who point out the hazards of homosexual behavior in an attempt to warn people of those hazards are guilty of “hate” but not the media and academe, which forbid or discourage even the suggestion that homosexual behavior could possibly harm anyone? How is this different from treating smokers the same way, namely, celebrating their lifestyle but never warning that they are harming themselves by pursuing it? (See my WND article on the comparison of smoking and homosexuality).

2-If you believe that same-sex marriage should receive the sanction of the state, are you aware that if this were done, then same-sex adoption could not be prohibited? Thinking back on your own childhood, would you trade the upbringing you had with two parents for an upbringing with two homosexuals? If you and your spouse were killed in an accident, and your children were to be adopted out, would it be ok with you that they be adopted by a same-sex couple? Would you be willing to change your last will and testament asap, asking the family court to specifically allow your children to be adopted by a same-sex couple?

Once you have answered these, please let me know if you have read the first chapter of “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian, entitled “Selling gay rights to America.”

Once you have read at least the first chapter, and have carefully read the present column, I will deem you qualified to debate on this issue and I will cheerfully post your response (or respond to your email) on this issue and respond to it in detail.

However, I will not necessarily go back over points already covered above and may not post comments displaying an ignorance of what I have said here or in the above-cited chapter.

Those who pretend there is a “civil rights” issue for homosexuals are either deliberately or carelessly ignoring the real issue of the dangerously dwindling religious freedom in America.

My Anabaptist ancestors came to these shores to avoid persecution back home in Europe for their religious beliefs. Some were burned at the stake, others imprisoned, others tortured by unbelievably cruel means. If you side with those who falsely frame the issue as “civil rights” for homosexuals, you are helping slam the door on the one last haven for the religious orthodox, the group that did more than any other to shape the precepts on which our nation is founded.

Now in the worst case scenario in which your “victims,” the homosexuals, feel the need to escape (a laughably remote possibility), they have the entire rest of the Western world to flee to.

But if my victims, the religious orthodox who fear God and oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds, are squeezed out of America by the intolerant worshippers of “tolerance,” whose shores will they flee to?

So who are the real victims?

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by conservatives

Aleksander Solzenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by America


By Donald Hank


Solzhenitsyn is known as a writer who addressed issues like the lack of freedom in the USSR, for example, in his novels “Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

But few are aware that his greatest contribution to the world was his thorough fact-finding research on the early years prior to the Russian Revolution and the first years thereafter.

Solzhenitsyn would go to the local library and ask for copies of pre-revolution newspapers. He would laboriously copy out passages that contradicted the Soviet revisionist histories. He also frequently checked out any items of interest in this regard, making library officials suspicious. He was soon tailed by Soviet agents, who interrogated him and ultimately had him arrested.

He was able to hide much of this copied information from them and later use it in his novels.

Thus Solzhenitsyn was much more than just a novelist. He was a chronicler and historian. And he was the only living Soviet who did this to such an extent. He filled a dark void and it is hard to imagine a world without his contribution.

Solzhenitsyn admitted that he was, initially, just another Soviet citizen who hardly questioned the regime and its motives and agenda. Yet, his curiosity led him to knowledge, and knowledge ultimately led to freedom.

But it was a long hard journey, and few understand the sufferings he went through.

Even fewer understand his sufferings in America, where he lived for a few years while employed by Harvard University. Here he was snubbed by those who should have befriended him. And he was snubbed – ultimately – simply for being a Russian patriot.

President Reagan’s advisors wrongly categorized Solzhenitsyn as an extreme nationalist, when he was nothing but a man who loved his country.

No wonder then that he returned disillusioned to Russia and became reconciled with some of the people who were once his persecutors. Who knows what direction Russia would have taken if America had befriended Solzhenitsyn instead of marginalizing him?

And it didn’t have to be that way. American conservatives must divorce their feelings about evil regimes from their feelings toward the people who have suffered under those regimes.

How can God bless us if we do not?

I had stumbled across Solzhenitsyn’s letter to Reagan, and had long wrestled with the idea of translating it but was thwarted by 2 considerations:

1-Perhaps the letter had already been published in English;

2-Perhaps it would not change any minds or produce any tangible benefit for Americans.

But now that our dear friend of freedom is gone, I decided to investigate and found no mention of the letter in English anywhere on the Web.

And I thought perhaps someone may benefit from reading it. Not that I wish to highlight the failure of those Americans responsible for offending the writer. It is rather my desire to help Americans of our generation to learn from our past mistakes.

I have tried to help introduce to Americans a writer from Brazil whose passion for freedom and understanding of the extreme dangers that the Left poses here and in his home country remind me for all the word of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The knowledge we can gain from him is considerable and can be turned to our advantage.

Who knows? Perhaps how you treat Olavo de Carvalho may in some way affect our future course.

Let’s do better this time around.




Letter to President Reagan


(Published in the book “Aleksander Solzhenitsyn”, Yaroslavl, Verkhnaja Volga, 1997)


Cavendish, May 3, 1982


Dear Mr. President,

I am delighted with many aspects of your activity, and am happy for America that it finally has a president like you.  I never cease to thank God that you were not killed by those malicious bullets.

However, I have never had the honor of being received at the White House — neither in the Ford administration (the question arose there without my participation), nor later.  In recent months, roundabout inquiries have come to me through various routes asking under what circumstances I would be willing to accept an invitation to visit the White House.  I always responded that I was willing to go for a substantive discussion with you under circumstances providing the opportunity for a serious effective conversation, but not for an open ceremony.  I do not have time in my life for symbolic meetings.

However, I was offered (in a telephone call from advisor Pipes) not a personal meeting with you but a luncheon with the participation of emigrant politicians.  The same sources announced that this would be a luncheon for “Soviet dissidents.”  However, an artistic writer in the Russian sense does not belong to either of these groups.  I cannot allow myself to be assigned a false rank.  Further, the fact, form and date of the reception were sent and released to the press before I was informed myself. To this day, I have not received any information on even the names of the persons who were invited along with me for May 11.

Still worse, the press reported various hesitations on the part of the White House and publicly announced that the White House had not refuted the statement of the reason why a meeting with me was considered undesirable, namely, because I was “a symbol of extreme Russian nationalism.” This statement is offensive to my countrymen, to whose suffering I have dedicated my entire literary life. 

 I am not a “nationalist” at all.  I am a patriot.  In other words, I love my country — and that is why I also understand why others love theirs.  On more than one occasion, I have publicly stated that the vital interests of the peoples of the USSR demand the immediate cessation of all global seizures by the Soviets.  If people who think as I do came to power in the USSR, their first step would be to pull out of Central America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, leaving these nations to decide their own fate.  Their second step would be to stop the murderous arms race, devote the country’s efforts to healing the internal nearly century-old wounds of an already moribund populace.  And, of course, they would open the doors to those who wish to emigrate from our hapless country.

Amazingly, none of this suits your nearest advisers!  They want something else.  They call this [my] program “extreme Russian nationalism,” and some American generals are proposing selectively destroying the Russian population with an atomic strike.  It is odd that in the world today Russian nationalism evokes the greatest fear both in the potentates of the USSR and in the people around you.  Here is evidenced the hostile stance toward Russia herself, the country and the people, independently of government forms, which is characteristic of a substantial segment of American educated society, American financial circles and, sadly, even your advisers.  This attitude is harmful to the future of our two nations.

 Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I write this letter.  But I think that if a meeting with you somewhere were considered undesirable because you are an American patriot, you would also be offended.

Once you are no longer president, if you are ever in Vermont, I will be sincerely happy to meet with you at my home. 

Since this entire episode has been subjected to a distorted interpretation and it is quite likely that my motives for not traveling there have already been distorted, I feel that I will be obliged to publish this letter. Forgive me.

With sincere respect,

Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Translated by Donald Hank


Informative article on Solzhenitsyn:


Further reading on Solzhenitsyn’s stay in Vermont:



Global Warming: Evolutionary “Science” Warmed Over?

By Anthony Horvath

I need to admit from the beginning that I have not personally investigated the data said to be for or against Global Warming.  That said, I have been watching carefully how Global Warming is being promoted and defended and as a long time observer of how Evolutionary Theory is defended, the similarities are striking.

Examples of censorship against skeptics of Evolutionary Theory are now so numerous that Ben Stein just produced a whole movie on how those who advance ‘Intelligent Design’ are castigated and even have their careers threatened for taking a view that is not strictly Darwinian.  Have we not seen similar tactics employed in the Global Warming debate?  There are many examples, including comparing skeptics of Global Warming to holocaust deniers, threatening to fire climatologists, and more.

There is one unique difference between Evolutionary Theory and Global Warming, and that is that each of us, as ones living on the globe, can get a sense for themselves whether or not it is warming or cooling in any dramatic fashion, but we do not all have access to all the fossils.

I can tell you that in Wisconsin it was a cold winter and it lasted long!  Anecdotal, to be sure, but it makes one wonder when the Global Warming talk begins and hearing that long cold spells are exactly what you can expect from a warming globe certainly raises eyebrows.  What would you expect from a cooling globe? Hot spells?

It is very telling that promoters of Global Warming have resorted to tactics long employed by Evolutionists.  Rabid Darwinist Richard Dawkins famously said, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”  It is not long- indeed, the day may already be upon us- before those who are skeptical of Global Warming make the same kind of statements.

We must ask ourselves why the proponents of Evolution and Global Warming feel like they need to advance their positions by using such hostile methods. In the case of Evolution I think the answer is obvious:  the science itself isn’t nearly as conclusive as we are led to believe.  As such, the position needs to be advanced with blunt force since the evidence is not as self-evidently persuasive as other, less controversial, scientific facts.  Might it be that Evolutionary Theory is actually propelled by philosophical naturalism and not the evidence as illustrated by another quote by Richard Dawkins, that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist?

Science has certainly done great good, although it has handed us numerous ethical dilemmas as well.  Yet few probably understand that what passes as science these days isn’t always like the science they learned in high school.  There we learned that science proceeded along a method:  first you make some observations, then you hypothesize about those observations, then you craft experiments which will tell you more about your hypothesis, and you do this a number of times, testing different explanations and challenges to the data you are generating, and eventually you come to the point where you can generate a theory out of it all.

It is here that the similarities between Global Warming and Evolutionary Theory become uncanny.  All of the really controversial aspects of Evolution happened in the past, outside of observation and beyond experimentation.  We have fossils, which must be interpreted, and we have small scale examples of variation within similar organisms, but the rest of extrapolation.  Nor can we make any precise predictions on what kind of organisms will emerge in the future, since the biggest driver of evolutionary change is change to the DNA code itself- which is random.  The theory is impotent in offering anything more substantially concrete beyond predicting that species will change, which anyone who has seen a baby and noticed that it is different than its parents will observe.

Moreover, you can’t falsify the theory because uncomfortable data merely calls for a revision of it, with no realistic hope that anything would actually refute it.

Global Warming seems to be developing along similar lines prompting us to wonder if it too might be agenda driven.  We observe the weather all the time, but as far as performing experiments at a scale that could actually tell us whether or not humans are causing the putative warming, that is an entirely different matter.  Short term weather forecasting has improved a great deal but attempts to predict how many major hurricanes there will be in a season have been embarrassingly off.  The year 2008 is producing a fair number of tornados, many more than previous years (though not all years), but as near as I can tell, there were not siren calls in 2007 telling us to watch out this particular year.

There is also the curious fact that according to the same data, the earth has endured numerous warming and cooling cycles with no help or hindrance from human activity.  What kind of experiment is being proposed that will help us distinguish between a global temperature change brought about by public policies and a change brought about by natural processes alone?  I am aware of none.  I am not even aware that Global Warming proponents think it important.

So whether it is hot or cold Global Warming is a scientific fact just as Evolution is a scientific fact whether it happens fast or slow (see Punctuated Equilibrium).  And don’t you dare question whether it happened!  Your job is at risk if you do.  That is perfectly justified, since if you do, you are ignorant, stupid, or insane- or possibly wicked.  Naturally, you don’t reason with stupid and insane people, and wicked people you must oppose as a matter of course.   Right?

No, I have not yet formed an opinion on Global Warming, but it appears that skepticism is called for.  If others were to become more skeptical- even of scientists- who knows what towering theories would tumble.

Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  He is the author of the Birth Pangs series and his apologetics website, sntjohnny.com, is frequented by both believer and unbelievers.

You deserve some good news

You deserve some good news

By Donald Hank

Recently Joseph Farah suggested that despite the bad batch of presidential candidates from which to choose, he is optimistic, because he believes our institutions are changing in a positive way. I believe he is on to something. Last year WND’s hardcopy periodical Whistleblower dedicated an entire issue to abortion. Despite the dismal reports it contained, eg, that more unborn babies had died in abortions since Wade-Roe than in Hitler’s and Stalin’s murder sprees combined, the whole tenor of the issue was upbeat. The good news was that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find doctors to perform abortions. This in turn, I think, was certainly due to the excellent work done on the front lines by ordinary people writing letters to legislators and newspapers, attending rallies or carrying posters and picketing at strategic locations throughout the US. There had always been a lot of controversy over those posters with graphic photos of dead fetuses and their body parts, which are certainly hard to look at and take us way out of our comfort zone.

But oddly, many of the people who hated these posters and the truth they display so graphically were the ones who wound up giving ground on the issue of abortion. These included prominent Democrats and even some of the pioneers of the abortion movement.

The truth, resisted so fiercely for so long, had ultimately sunk in and had had a devastating effect on the abortion industry. So much so that no matter who becomes president, they will have to contend with an increasingly mighty backlash against abortion, and the prospect of giving ground or losing popularity.

Likewise, in one of our recent articles, we saw how author Ryan Sorba’s speech at Smith College was curtailed by a bunch of howling lesbian termagants.

Someone who saw this article emailed me in a pessimistic tone suggesting the world may be coming to an end or the like because of this incident. I told this emailer not to worry, that things like this fix themselves when the public becomes aware of how their rights are being threatened.

I was thinking back on things that had happened in the past that would cause people gloom but that were corrected when the news came out, and not by coincidence, but precisely because the news came out and was presented in an objective way that showed how the event in question was a threat to this or that right.

For example, consider last summer’s failed amnesty bill that was killed by the grassroots in an elitist Senate that was suddenly overpowered by regular people like you and me. Or look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an issue that came to a head when the presidents of the US, Mexico and Canada met secretly in Canada. The public outcry was so great that ranking officials have recently declared the SPP a dead issue. Of course, that means that it will morph into something else, which in turn will have to be exposed to the sunlight.

The good news is that the public outcry against supranational enterprises of this type has helped chip away at the stealthy effectiveness with which they had once succeeded almost unopposed. Laigle’s Forum played a part with some of our articles beginning back in June 2006 with a 3 part series containing: an original column entitled The supranational movement; our translation from the HazteOir web site (in Spain) entitled The call effect in Spain, and our translation (from the Portuguese) of Olavo de Carvalho’s scholarly expose Behind the subversion, and later others, including my column at WorldNetDaily entitled Europe’s frog stew and a column entitled The EU is an evil empire.

But getting back to the riot at Smith College, here is why I am no longer worried that our First Amendment may not survive the homosexual onslaught:

Today there was this video at ABC News that shows a sea change.

Now don’t be surprised if ABC has taken it down by the time you click. But the damage has been done, and not to our side, but to the homosexual cause. This video is the first report I have ever seen presented at a mainstream news site (I assume it aired on TV) in which the reporter actually show objectively how homosexual bullies deny people their rights, muzzle opponents and squelch debate.

What really stunned me was that, with a candor and balance I have never seen in the mainstream news, the reporter tells us that a member of the American Psychiatric Association had tried for 2 years to organize a symposium discussing why people become gay and whether a gay can “go straight,” but that the gay community had staged a protest so vigorous that the symposium had to be cancelled. Until this time, the public had not been privy to the fact that the gay agenda is directly opposed to free discussion. The report concludes:

“He [the organizer of the symposium] wishes people would stop shouting and start talking.”

I have been outspoken about homosexual issues in the past and was never intimidated by these activists. I like to think this is because I have always taken my orders from my Commander-in-Chief, who said I was to love sinners. My theory is that perhaps those who shy away from confrontations, or give in to “gay” marriage demands, for example, are those who down inside really do hate, resent or fear gay people and are afraid these untoward feelings might surface in a confrontation (as they did, for example, when Michael Savage told a homosexual caller: “you should die of AIDS”). At any rate, for whatever reason, by and large, the media, including most of the “conservative” media, have always been particularly gutless in countering or even questioning the gay agenda.

But ABC has started a trend that, in my perception, is new. It was long overdue.

I also suspect that Ben Stein’s expose of academic intolerance has actually shaken more than a few consciences, just like those pro-life activists who mightily smote the national conscience, and his film Expelled may in fact have influenced ABC’s reporters.

At any rate, for whatever reason, ABC did the right thing in suggesting that the screaming stop and the talk begin.

Thank you, ABC!

My point is that no matter how bad our next president is or how much he or she differs from the grassroots in terms of viewpoint, politicians are not omnipotent. They rely on a certain degree of popularity to carry out their agendas. You and I still decide whether they get that.

And God decides whether or not they succeed.

We had previously reported on the Holmen church-and-state issue where a national atheist organization tried to sue to have a religious symbol removed. Here is Anthony Horvath’s latest report: