Laigle’s Forum

Tarnished “conservative” icons 

Perhaps you will have read the press release about Tony Perkins having been “disinvited” to prayer luncheon for military families. There is nothing like martyrdom to create sympathy for a person or group.

Indeed, groups like Perkins’ Family Research Council seem to be doing a lot of good, certainly more good than evil, one would assume.

But good and evil deeds have priority levels. If you make a strong statement that supports the don’t ask don’t tell policy (as opposed to encouraging open homosexuality in the military), then you will garner the sympathy of most conservatives – a low priority action with minor ripple effects but a good deed nonetheless.

Yet, what if you make such a courageous statement but at the same time support a presidential candidate who has been known to support un-Christian policies like same-sex marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual teaching in the schools? That is a higher-priority action than making a simple statement because now you are enabling a presidential candidate with an unsound record, who, if elected by your followers on the strength of your endorsement, can do a lot of serious damage on a wide scale – damage that cannot be undone simply by making a statement in support of “family values.” Talk is cheap. “Progressive” culture change, enabled by wolves in sheep’s clothing, is dear.

As we have shown previously at Laigle’s Forum, Tony Perkins refers to Mitt Romney as “pro-family” even though he knows that Mitt had a decidedly anti-family administration as MA governor, supporting same-sex marriage by unconstitutionally issuing an order to his JPs to perform same-sex marriages, signing into law a government health care plan that included a $50 abortion, and enabling public schools to teach the doctrine that homosexuality is an essentially normal and safe lifestyle, and even to encourage students to try it.

But perhaps Mitt’s critics are uncharitable, you say. After all, like the Apostle Paul, he claims to have had a spiritual epiphany and to have promised to “go and sin no more.” How touching.

But what do you suppose would have become of the fledgling Christian religion if the Apostle Paul had been found to have stoned Christians after his road-to-Damascus epiphany?

Well, that is tantamount to what Mitt’s critics, credible ones like Gregg Jackson, once a prominent leader of the Christian conservative movement and author of the best selling “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies” and prominent conservative and former prominent CNP (Council on National Policy) insider Steve Baldwin, claim Mitt Romney did while governor.

More significantly, as Steve Baldwin maintains in the following article, the transgressions of Toney Perkins were a symptom of a much wider-spread capitulation to evil in exchange for worldly gain. A symptom of the almost-total collapse of the “pro-family” movement in America.

He ought to know.

Don Hank

Inside the CNP

By Steve Baldwin

I was with CNP (Council on National Policy) for nine years.  My goal was to transform CNP into a group that truly represented real grass-roots conservatives.  And there are some good people still in CNP today, many of whom I recruited.  But the group remains dominated by leaders from the Reagan era who long ago became comfy with their nice salaries and benefits and haven’t been warriors in decades. And, yes, many of them have sold out their principles. I’ve come to the conclusion that this group of phony leaders have actually set the movement back light years.  Indeed, by claiming in all their direct mail pieces how well their groups were allegedly doing, most grass-roots conservatives mistakenly assumed their battles were being fought by well-funded groups inside the beltway. The reality was that our leadership rotted out from within many years ago and that, in fact, we have been losing our battles inside the beltway far more often than the grass-roots realized.  Indeed, there are very few leaders inside the beltway I would trust today.  

Around 2004 I started to observe how the Romney machine gradually began to buy out many groups and leaders associated with CNP and the more I dug, the uglier it got. I then started to speak out against the Romney propaganda machine and how his five PACs and foundations were spreading money around the movement like Santa Claus throwing out candy at a Christmas Day parade.  I don’t think I knew it at the time, but this was the beginning of the end for me as CNP’s executive director.  I used my position to confront leaders regarding their support for Romney.  I confronted Bopp, Perkins, National Review writers, Human Events writers, Dobson, Minnery, Norquist and dozens of other key leaders who had bought into this notion that Romney was a conservative superstar and something akin to Ronald Reagan.

After a year or two of exposing Romney’s liberal background, I begun to pick up serious enemies on the CNP board and by late 2008, the Romney partisans who dominate the CNP board trumped up a few phony reasons to force me out. I can’t prove without a doubt that it was the Romney issue that did me in, but I think it was.  It was a real eye opener for me because it dawned on me that over time many leaders whom I used to respect were in fact using the Romney campaign to increase their power.  I had also discovered a lot of dirty little secrets that I think my board members would have preferred for me to keep my mouth shut about. Such as how the Heritage Foundation took $35,000 in contributions from Romney’s PAC and then promptly started to promote his socialized health care plan — which later became a model for ObamaCare. 

It was also shocking to find many so called pro-family leaders within FRC and Focus on the Family promoting Romney as if they were unaware that Romney had unilaterally signed an executive order creating homosexual marriage in his home state.  Indeed, many of our national pro-family leaders sat by silently when Romney did this, even looking the other way when his administration gave a “parent of the year” award to a homosexual couple and pretending not to notice the rabid, hard left homosexual judges Governor Romney appointed to the bench. Then, these very same “leaders” promoted Romney a few years later as a “pro-family superstar” and as someone the entire movement should get behind.

Essentially, Romney was the catalyst for the successful implementation of two policies– socialized health care and homosexual marriage — that are now threatening to destroy what’s left of America’s Christian and Constitutional Heritage.  But our movement’s leadership sat there and watched it happen and then, when Romney became a presidential candidate, they all pretended not to know anything about his background and tried to make him the movement’s candidate for president.  It was a stunning coup.  It just blew me away.  

The expose you wrote with Paine regarding Romney’s sell out on homosexual marriage certainly did jolt me but I had already known by then how incredibly liberal Romney was.  While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had actually sent a delegation from his Department of Education to California to testify before the state legislature (where I had served for six years) about how Massachusetts is the model nationwide for “gay-friendly” curricula and pro-homosexual events at its public schools.  They were urging legislators in California to adopt similar legislation. Romney was apparently quite proud of this and this was only five years ago.  

The other discovery that shook my faith in our leadership was the financial links I found between Romney, National Review and Human Events (surprise! both publicly endorsed him) and then while documenting financial transactions between HE and Romney, I discovered that the publisher of Human Events was not only a homosexual but his FEC disclosures showed he was pouring his profits into Democrat and homosexual PACS.  When I started sending out emails about that, the you-know-hat hit the fan.  I had taken too many shots at the powers to be and it was apparently determined by the movement gods on Mt. Olympus somewhere that I could no longer hold a position in the center of the conservative movement.   

And so, the official decree went out:  BALDWIN MUST BE PURGED FROM THE MOVEMENT ASAP!  And I was. And I’m glad, because I now realize that what many people assume was a real conservative leadership in DC, was a fact in group of power mongers that cared more about money and power than actually conserving America’s constitutional heritage.

God Almighty on the job after failed stint by Gaia

By Don Hank

If you live in the northern part of the US as far south as Washington, DC, you will notice that there is a lot of snow outside your window. And there was a lot of it out there this weekend too, more than you had seen in many years. Several photos appeared in various publications showing a snowed-in White House — the residence of Barack Obama, who just a few weeks earlier had tried desperately to get the world’s richest countries to pay a global tax for supposedly causing global warming.

The “global warming” strategists have created a perfect alibi. Now they are saying that if it gets colder that is because of global warming. If it gets warmer, well, you know. Their Copenhagen climate conference didn’t work out, but they are determined to do damage control. It doesn’t get much more ridiculous than this. But after all, we are talking about the Left.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I think God is in charge of the weather, and if I were Him, I would send mankind an unmistakable reminder right about now.

Oh, I don’t know, maybe like a larger than usual snow storm during the Copenhagen conference, and then maybe some record or near-record snows later in the year just so folks would not forget Who is in charge.

Now, if you are a Gaya worshipper like Al Gore, I don’t really mean to rub it in, but it sure looks like God Almighty has taken back the weather-making function. Not that He had ever relinquished it in the first place, mind you, but it was time for Him to make it clear.

Let me remind you of something: The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of religion and religion is what global warming is really all about.

By suggesting that man could be the weather-maker, leftists defy a plethora of passages in the Bible affirming that God is in charge of the weather.

Matthew 8: 23-27 tells us Jesus stopped a violent storm with a few words.

Yet in his book “Earth in the Balance,” Al Gore deliberately chooses to write worshipfully about the pagan goddess Gaia, who was once associated in Pagan world with the forces of nature. It’s not that he really believes in Gaia. It’s just that he wants to deliberately slur the Bible, because as a leftist, he feels compelled to do so. Real leftists aren’t currently at war with other religions, especially pagan ones like Gaia worship, so they can appear religious while committing the most heinous acts of blasphemy against the living God.

They see Christianity as the real enemy, and the tantalizing concept of man made global warming as a means of defeating it just sort of fell into their laps. The trouble is, the hacker who managed to break into the computer system of the department of the University of East Anglia, which had been charged with keeping and interpreting the climate records for the entire world, proved that they were massaging the data to make it seem like the earth was warming when for any objective scientist, there could never have been a clear-cut, unequivocal conclusion based on such tenuous data.

So why would they go to so much trouble to make us believe a myth?

A lot is at stake. Modern scientists think it is their duty to demonstrate that God does not exist in order to further the “progressive” cause. Darwinists have done the same sort of propagandizing for years, particularly in the origin-of-life area. Ben Stein’s movie Expelled shows the enormous lengths to which they will go to keep certain data and ideas away from the public – including firing academics who even suggest they may believe in the Creator. They act as if defeating the notion of a living God is a matter of life and death.

I personally waged a mostly one-man debate against a group of Darwinists at the amazon.com forum on Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” and discovered how incredibly childish and silly their little games can be. For example, when I linked to Stein’s DVD at the Amazon site to support an argument about how Darwinists bully, the moderator momentarily changed the price of the DVD from less than $20 to $999.99 (changing it back shortly thereafter to avoid detection), and during this time, someone at Amazon, without my authorization, re-activated a seller account I had closed 9 months earlier, and someone “bought” a book I was no longer selling, trying to embarrass me. However, the Amazon moderators did me a favor, proving my point that Darwinists are bullies better than I could have without that perfect illustration. Leftists never learn.

And on a higher plane, God has His ways, and all the lies and distortions of the Left always com to light, leaving the Left with a black eye. Be sure your sin will find you out.

The Tower of Babel was a symbol of the Left in Bible times. This bunch, attempting to trivialize the Almighty, wanted to build a tower that would reach to heaven, but God stopped them in their tracks by confounding the builders’ tongues so they couldn’t understand each other.

Global warming was the same kind of idea, an attempt to displace God, making people think that puny insignificant humans were in fact in charge of the weather.

But they were found out, and now the “global warming” movement is in disarray.

And best of all, while we powerless humans who opposed this diabolical agenda could do nothing but pray, God did the heavy lifting.

Just look out your window.

Have you ever seen anything more beautiful?

The UK political elites have come up with a legal scheme almost identical in its content to our EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) law. Anyone who keeps up with alerts coming out of Christian, libertarian or conservative groups in Europe will easily see that the same fascistic programs are being pursued over there as they are here in the US. That will not surprise anyone who knows about the international left and its agenda and the scope of its action. But, sadly, few of us do.

For those who have never been exposed to this concept, you need to understand that the Communist Manifesto, written when socialism was in its infancy, already spelled out that the communist must oppose family and religion. This all-important fact is almost completely ignored by Americans, and consequently, when they hear of plans to “protect” homosexuals, they buy it at face value, believing that this particular sexual orientation is undergoing some horrible holocaust-like pogrom and is subject to economic persecution that threatens the livelihood of every single member.

This could not be further from the truth. As David Kupelian points out in his book “The Marketing of Evil,” homosexuals have a higher than average income and level of wealth.

The real agenda behind “protection” of homosexuals and same-sex marriage bills, for example, is to take civilization one step closer to the utopia envisioned by Marx and Engels.

If this seems surprising to you (or even if it doesn’t), please read this Christian response to the Equality Bill, which was recently defeated in the House of Lords.

Don Hank

WHY CHRISTIANS MUST OPPOSE THE EQUALITY BILL.

By Graham Wood, UK

The defeat of the government’s Equality Bill by the House of Lords recently was of huge importance and significance, because it brought to a halt, albeit only temporarily, a long succession of laws restricting Christian liberty and freedoms.  The Bill sought amongst other things to impose a perception of “equality” on Christians and churches and a duty on all public bodies, including Christian employers, to ensure that no discrimination takes place against homosexuals or lesbians in employment.

The Bill if passed would have compelled churches and faith groups to a course wholly alien to their doctrinal positions and ethos.  Already Christians critical of homosexuality, or declining directly or indirectly  to associate with this ideology have met with opposition and even suspension or dismissal from their places of employment,  on what can only be described  as grounded on unnecessary or flimsy grounds.

UNINTENDED DISCRIMINATION.

What was intended as a law to prevent discrimination and to ensure “equality” has in fact led to cases of direct discrimination against others who on conscientious grounds have objected to being compelled to

recognize and associate with an ethos with which  they fundamentally disagree.  Whilst the intention of the law may have been good, its practical outworking, and that of similar legislation already in place, has resulted in the very opposite of the original intention, and so reverse discrimination occurs.

In addition, such legislation is seen by Christians as being at best, a non existent problem, and at worst, a direct attack upon  long held basic  freedoms,  of opinion,  of expression and  of association,  formerly taken for granted under our Common law.

 These have been secured for us at very great cost over the course of centuries by defenders of liberty from the ever present threat of loss through the encroachments of arbitrary governments which are often hungry to accrue power to the State at the expense of individual freedom.  Such lovers of liberty believed these principles to be so fundamentally important, especially those grounded on conscience, that they were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve such freedoms for their posterity.   We do well to remember the costly price of those freedoms once again under threat.

Instead of the Common law assumption that all is allowed, except what which is directly forbidden by statute law or which endangers or threatens others, we now have increasingly the assertion by the State that it alone is the dispenser of such rights, to be granted or withheld through the will of Parliament or even by other unelected organsations.

  In this respect we should remember that the Equality Bill and its predecessors have come to us primarily through mandatory European Union “directives”.  As we know, these ride roughshod over the long held accepted norms of democratic political accountability, not to mention our national characteristics of easy tolerance of minorities, even when their  views may strongly differ from our own.   Indeed, the imposition of a homosexual ideology as seen in this Bill and similar legislation has the hallmarks of institutionalised  bigotry and intolerance by the State, and ironically, a main function of which is to protect minorities to live in freedom and  harmony within the rest of society.

CULTURAL MARXISM. 

  Aware of increasing surveillance by the State on every aspect of private and public life, together with the avalanche of restrictive legislation militating against the freedom of the individual one observer notes: “slowly, and the political elites hope imperceptibly, we are being brought under totalitarian control.  It goes largely unnoticed because the moves seem unconnected and journalists and opposition politicians are part of the same ruling class.  This ‘ideological caste’ is made up of cultural Marxists that admits only those into power with the same views, and expels after disgracing, any who dissent”   Is not this the central tenet of “political correctness” – i.e. an imposed standard of homogenous uniformity?.   One familiar example is that of labeling dissenters to the ‘global warming’ theory as “deniers”, a pejorative term associated with those who ‘deny’ the Nazi holocaust of Jews in WW2.  Similarly those who for various reasons reject a homosexual ideology are  lumped together as ‘homophobes’.   Cultural Marxism is now a world-wide phenomena in the Western world where the watchword is ”everything is political…… a total ideological system supplying opinions for every aspect of life”.   This parasitic mind-set feeds on stirring up concepts of permanent victim-hood in which all perceived inequalities in life must be attributed blameworthy by, or to, somebody – described by some as ‘the politics of envy’, warranting it is believed ever more State intervention on one hand or ‘vexatious’ private litigation by the aggrieved on the other.  Thus it is that those who do not accept a homosexual ethos can now be identified as creating “victims” merely by virtue of their dissent, and such victims are seen as being gratuitously “offended” and therefore requiring the protection of the law.

ATTACK UPON CHRISTIAN FREEDOMS .

There is a growing body of opinion which identifies cultural Marxism as having  another and more sinister agenda, namely to systematically and deliberately undermine and eventually to destroy, all traditional Christian values and freedoms of expression and association.  The route to these objectives is to so influence and then move public opinion to see normal Christian values as being regressive, backward, and the enemy of  modernity and progress. The attacks are anti-family through homosexual  indoctrination of the young in schools and education, anti independence of thought, and even anti academic freedom.  Finally, this ideology seeks to corrupt and distort Western culture and the remnants of its Judeo/Christian elements at every possible level, particularly through a largely sympathetic media in popular TV programmes and print media.  

STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE CHURCH

The unintended discriminatory elements of the Equality Bill against Christian employers is to be deplored and resisted as it represents a challenge to the independent nature and government of the church.  It raises the question as to whether the State has the right or authority to legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of Christ, whether established or not, where the employment of church officers or youth workers or others are concerned?   The question itself raises the ghost of past conflicts throughout church history in which arbitrary government laws have sought to regulate the life of the church.  The church v State issue therefore is not new, and the Equality Bill and its predecessors   serves to bring the issue to a head once again. 

What is at stake is much more than a question of employment rights, or even some concept of ‘equality’, but rather one of the historic right of Christians, and indeed other faith groups, to independently determine their own course of action in these matters. The long established and recognised freedom of association principle whereby Churches alone govern their internal affairs would be set aside by the Bill.   That freedom ensured for Christians the right to choose with whom they associate, and conversely, to exclude those who do not share their doctrinal convictions based on the clear teaching of Scripture.   That includes, of necessity, the exclusion of ‘gay’ or lesbian applicants for employment within churches.

THE CHURCH SHALL BE FREE !

 Until relatively recently that right was fully recognised by the State – a right incidentally that was expressed as far back as the Magna Carta of 1215.  This  stated in unequivocal terms:

  “We have in the first place granted for us and our heirs for ever, that the Church of (in) England shall be free”.

It is noteworthy that this  great Charter of civil and religious liberties  pre-dated the existence of Parliament, and is not therefore subject to amendment or repeal by Parliaments to this day, representing as it does a contract between the Sovereign and people.

The same conflict re-emerged repeatedly when Tudor and Stuart kings sought to impose their will upon the church, and this prompted the great poet and pamphleteer John Milton  to write his great treatise -  “ Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes”, with the pointed sub-title,  “Showing that it is not lawful for any power on earth to compel in matters of religion”.

Over 200 years later the principle was once again contested when the Presbyterian Church of Scotland claimed its right to full independence from the English Crown, asserting that the civil power had no authority over the Church.  The dispute led to the passing of the Church of Scotland Act of 1921 by which the State recognised in law the independence of the Presbyterian Church.  One main Article in the Act is the ringing declaration on the headship of Christ over his church in all matters.  It can hardly be bettered:

“The Church as part of the universal church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of church office bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the Church”.

If the Equality Bill returns for the collective church to grapple with then  two courses would provide a sure bulwark against the inroads of further secularism and mis-placed concepts of equality.  The first is the recognition of the principle which the Scottish church expressed so clearly. All it requires is application, faithfully and fearlessly.

The second is not an available option but ought to be if any future government takes seriously a fresh appraisal of the church/State relationship.  It should adopt the First Amendment of the great Constitution of the USA which stated so simply and clearly the fundamental principle in 1776:

 “(Congress) may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government”

Laigle’s staff writer Anthony Horvath had an article published with Worldnetdaily.com answering in the affirmative.

Can it really be said, though, that all taxation represents a reduction in freedom? The answer to this must be yes, even if we recognize that the effect on freedom might be slight in some cases. To illustrate, imagine a small income tax of a dollar. It might be an easy matter to get by without that dollar, but it is still one more dollar that you cannot spend according to your own priorities. Consider what the impact is if instead the tax is 25 percent of your income!

We also have to ask about those who are doing the taxing. They obviously believe they have the right to take your resources from you. They must believe that they can obtain some good that you, and perhaps few others, would have subsidized if left to your own devices. They must believe that they know how much they can fairly extract from you. They must believe that they have the right, if you protest, to incarcerate you and take your possessions by force if need be. In sum, they are almost indistinguishable from tyrants.

Christians should not support tyrants or adopt their methods and so become tyrants ourselves. If there is a cause we wish to support, we ought to do so from our own resources out of the free expression of our own hearts (2 Corinthians 8).

Read the rest of the article.

Glenn Beck and how Americans got this way

By Don Hank

Recently, a lot has been written about Glenn Beck and his refusal to look at the eligibility issue and his disdain for those of us who care about it.

First, let me be clear: I am a birther. By that I don’t mean that I am claiming Obama was definitely born in Kenya (where they have erected a monument at the place where he was born). I mean that I don’t know if Obama is a natural born citizen because he has never proven it. Therefore Beck is remiss to dismiss birthers’ concerns. We have a constitutional right to know, and judges who say otherwise are derelict in their duties and don’t deserve to be called judges any more than those judges who in 1973 decided that humans in the womb aren’t humans.

Ironically, though, despite Beck’s vexing unwillingness to admit what an increasing number of Americans know or sense about Obama’s eligibility to be president, no one has taught to the broad masses the sources of Marxist brainwashing – how we got to where we are – better than Glenn Beck. Others have written books that changed the way scholarly conservatives think, but Beck popularized this knowledge in ways that made scholars of ordinary people. He went into detail on the origins of “progressivism” and that is important. Without a comprehensive knowledge of how millions of ordinary decent Americans have been turned into glassy-eyed liberals, we are easy prey both to the propaganda itself and to those who accuse us watchdogs of McCarthyism.

Even if you are put off by Glenn’s histrionics, his shows have been a classroom for a long time – especially his TV show, where he has reviewed important eye-opening books night after night. He did his homework. If Patriots view Beck with a jaundiced eye today it is partly because he fails to see the importance of the eligibility issue but also in part because they have underestimated the role of propagandists in turning America leftward and they fail to see how much Beck has pulled back the curtain for millions of us, providing us a glimpse into the sordid world of Marxist disinformation in which we find ourselves.

Further, without Beck, there would not have been the Washington tea party. Like him or hate him, Beck has changed the nation.

This is as good an opportunity as any for a quick review of how we got where we are today, and we can start with a video of an interview with ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who shows how Americans were brainwashed through KGB methods such as demoralization and manipulation of and by the media. One thing that sticks in my mind from Yuri’s talks is that people brainwashed by these methods refuse to believe the truth and are essentially dead to the truth. “These people cannot be changed by logic. The change is complete and irreversible,” as Yuri puts it.

Remember the last time you tried to debate with a “liberal” zombie? The change that zombie underwent at some time in his life was complete and irreversible, wasn’t it? Facts are irrelevant.

Only a nucleus of people who read history, keep up with talk radio and web sites like Laigle’s Forum have even a pinch of understanding of what is going on around us and why. The average American will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that our “liberalization” is a result of a natural evolution process. We just keep getting smarter and more sensitive to the needs of others. Praise be to Darwin!

The Soviet propaganda source laid bare in the above-linked video is only one of many. Our education system, as Yuri mentions, has undermined us almost to the point of no return. But the influence came not only from Soviet operatives. Another powerful agency was the Frankfurt School, a group of German Marxists who came to America to escape Hitler and showed their gratitude by teaching their host country to hate its founders, its traditions and its culture. Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical and member of our pseudo-intelligentsia, was a scion of that group. Still another group was the more-or-less home-grown communist agents like Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, who taught other leftists how to manipulate us. Then there were our early educational theorists like John Dewey and his myriad clones. Reaching way back, there were psychologists like Freud and Pavlov, and later the “sexologists” Masters and Johnson who taught that sexual promiscuity is our reason for living. Then there was Dr. Spock who taught us how to spoil kids, and Timothy Leary, who taught spoiled kids how to do drugs. Radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, pushed for welfare and abortion and aided in breaking up families by redefining “abuse” of women, making it include things as prosaic as “giving your wife the silent treatment,” and hypocritically warned of child abuse while endorsing pedophilia. Thanks to their efforts, the institution of “no-fault divorce” was born, which converted the marriage contract into a worthless piece of paper for millions of husbands, who were often rendered penniless in “family” court in the headlong national effort to “protect women and children.” Similar agents of change were pedophiles like NAMBLA founder Allen Ginsberg, and homosexual activists who introduced and pushed for “gay” marriage to further undermine what was left of the American family. The Liberation Theologists made minorities feel oppressed and helpless and urged them to “strike back” at whites, their “oppressors,” rather than raise themselves out of poverty and ignorance through hard work and study, the only way to raise oneself out of poverty and ignorance. The net effect of these hate mongering racists, working in tandem with the educational left, was to create walls of ignorance, prejudice and hatred that will take decades to tear down. Likewise, the developers of the Delphi method, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made a significant contribution to mind control, manipulating participants to accept ideas – even dangerous ones – by “mainstreaming” them. Finally, as David Kupelian reminds us, Madison Avenue advertisers have contributed mightily to plunging us into a bottomless moral abyss where good is evil and vice-versa. (I’m sure you can think of many more such contributors to the brainwashing of America).

If you look at the sleaze surrounding Obama in his college days you get an idea of who many of the other movers and shakers were in the movement to destroy traditional America and replace it with Marxist utopian ideals.

We find that almost all of the ideas promulgated by these “agents of change” are now chillingly mainstream or close to it. Likewise you will find very few liberals who care that the White House resident has communists among his czars or his past mentors. In the ghetto, you’ll find almost no one who objects.

The Dems have them firmly in place down on their plantation.

So where does this leave Glenn Beck?

If I had Glenn Beck in front of me I would say:

You have focused bravely on monumental issues and I admire you for it. In the final analysis, every single one of these issues – from socialist health care to welfare for rich bankers – stems from the unwillingness of American politicians and judges to honor the Constitution. But the Constitution also has rules governing who can be president and who can’t.

I am therefore asking you to focus fairly on the eligibility issue. Give it its just due and please respect truth seekers whose quest has taken them down other trails than yours. They are your potential allies and you can win them back with a little extra effort.