Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

• Fertility control agents in the water supply
• Encourage women to work
• Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
• Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
• Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
• Discouragement of private home ownership
• Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
• Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law” but their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included that item in order to make a very important point.

I can help make that point here by sharing something from my foreword to Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilization.  I illustrate it by asking my readers to identify who wrote the following:

 “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.  Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

 “As Western society comes to distinguish between those forms of euthanasia that are pernicious and those that are therapeutic- an inevitable consequence of our progress toward liberal humanism- expanded access to neonatal euthanasia appears likely.”

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.   …  No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions… ”

And which Nazi wrote these words?  Was it Himmler?  Goebbels?  Hitler himself?    The case could be made that any Nazi could have comfortably made these statements, but in fact they were uttered by current ‘science czar’ of the Obama administration, John Holdren (1977), ‘bio-ethicist’ Jacob Appel (2009), and Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case, in a letter to Bill Clinton in 1992.

These are essentially the same ideas and concepts as embodied in the Jaffe Memo, as well as the sort of reasoning seen in Sanger, the eugenicists, and the Nazis;  the words and phraseology are different, for 2 reasons.  1., they are not idiots;  they know that it is not 1930 anymore, and if you talk like a Nazi, people are going to object and 2., they don’t actually think they are Nazis;  true, the ideas may be the same at some points and in some ways, but the Nazis used violence.  And therein lies the difference:  they want to achieve many of the same goals, but without the excessive bloodshed.

Which brings me back to the notion of women and working.  My random reader’s eyes glazed over at the rest of the list, but my inclusion of the hallmark of women’s liberation will set their teeth on edge.  But isn’t it curious to see such a thing on a list of ideas for controlling the world’s population?

Here, then is the point:   many of the positions accepted in our society are thought to be defensible on one set of arguments but they were originally advanced on an entirely different set of arguments.   I don’t know about the reader, but I get a little nervous about a particular position that was advocated, sometimes for the first time, by nazis, communists, and eugenicists.

The Jaffe Memo shows what anyone who has ever looked into Planned Parenthood and its roots will see:  Planned Parenthood doesn’t care at all about ‘women’s liberation’ and never has.   The average person on the street thinks that the crux of the abortion issue centers on whether or not a woman has the ‘choice’ to do as she pleases with her own body.  Wrong!

That’s how PP sold abortion to the masses, but that’s not their own agenda.

But is it possible take these issues separate from their original purposes?

Short answer:  That depends.  The purpose of this [adapted] article is meant only to illustrate the importance of carefully examining every issue right down to the rock bottom.   We must do this because there are people out there actively attempting to deceive us and manipulate us.  We can take nothing for granted.  If we fail to examine the issue to that level, we risk rendering ourselves nothing less than one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots.’

Let me give one more illustration from the Jaffe Memo. Not listed above, but in the memo itself, was this population control measure:  “Encourage increased homosexuality.”

If you check the newspaper and talk to the man on the street, homosexuality reduces to whether or not people have the right to ‘love’ whomever they please, and receive society’s stamp of approval in every instance.   It is put forward as such a basic human right, that to speak against it is to be regarded as a hate-monger.  In fact, it is the case that the world’s ‘hate crimes’ legislation almost exclusively targets those who are opposed to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  Those who stand in the way of people ‘loving’ each other in whatever manner must be folks of the lowest possible quality- equivalent, of course, to the Nazis.  And we all know what to do with such hate-mongerers;  outlaw their hate-speech and put them in prison, and some would go further- all in the name of tolerance, of course.

But the Jaffe Memo raises a very distinct possibility:  the push to normalize homosexuality was never about ‘equal rights’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘free and unrestrained sexual contact between consensual adults’ but about controlling the world’s population.

That would mean the fact that we’re even discussing the acceptability of gay marriage in our society is the result of a manipulation on a grand scale.   We may wonder:  if people are born gay, then should not there have been huge numbers of gay people for thousands of years constantly and consistently, so that there would not be any social mores against them to be overcome?  It should have been normal a long time ago.  Isn’t it interesting that their numbers have increased so rapidly just in the last fifty years?

The Jaffe Memo is just one example of the sort of thing that would lead a reasonable person to ask:  perhaps people are not born gay at all, but rather are made gay, by constant and consistent social engineering and normalization of behaviors that were heretofore- for perfectly good reasons- considered abnormal?

There are indisputable biological facts about men and women that suggest that homosexual behavior is wrong- or at minimum, not the sort of thing we should be mainstreaming and condoning as a society.

Unless, of course, it is precisely those biological facts that you are trying to get around.  Hence, the elitist liberal’s hard work of manipulating the masses to push their agenda without the masses knowing the real reasons for it.  If they did, they would not stand for it.  Since they didn’t, they’ve accepted it, hook, line, and sinker.

It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it.  If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort:  directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.

In light of this extensive manipulation, I feel compelled to argue that in our day and age, religion and politics must absolutely be mixed.  Before you leap to conclusions, you best hear me out.   I’ll post a link to it as soon as I have it ready.

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle's contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life. He is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries]

by Don Hank

Pat Condell has a unique way with language, as a recent video shows.

Look at this delightful phrase: ” [the EU]…will collapse under the weight of its own illegitimacy.”

It occurs to me that, due to their opposition to tyranny, atheists like Pat are actually in the same boat as biblical Christians, though seemingly at opposite poles, and our plight –  as well as our tragic inability to grasp it – is as described by Martin Niemöller in that famous quote

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist…[etc]“

A sincere and questioning mind will, absent bias and external obstructions, come round to the truth. Atheism can be a painful first step in questioning received wisdom, but it may never be the last.

National unity means joining in common cause with everyone who opposes the common enemy, at least in the opposition to that enemy and until he is vanquished. There are no superiors or inferiors in that struggle, just people yearning for their share of the rights and voice that are rightfully theirs. Their God-given rights as we say. The term “God-given” may offend some people with claims to “higher enlightenment,” but consider that it was precisely the notion that man can create rights out of thin air that gave birth to the despotic EU – just as the corollary notion that central banks – part of that same entity — can create money out of thin air contributed mightily to our current financial malaise. Those perverse ideas are twins.

I doubt it has ever occurred to Pat that his militant atheism is part of the cultural Marxism that has been foisted on Europe for generations by the very elites he rails against. After all, the Fabian Society was founded (in London) for a twofold purpose:

1. to spread socialism, and

2. to eliminate Judeo-Christian culture.

Today’s elites are the spiritual and ideological heirs to that agenda, and yet, many of their putative opponents are unwittingly assisting them in their quest to destroy our Western culture and heritage by assailing Judeo-Christianity.

Pat is part of our landscape, his words are too powerful to ignore, and he is absolutely right that the EU has stolen from Europeans. But he needs to understand that opposing only the political agenda of the Imperial Powers he rails against is an incomplete task — even a futile one — unless we oppose their social agenda as well. Opposition to the enemy’s destructiveness is a vital first step. Railing against constructive faith that ultimately can replace what that agenda has torn asunder negates that opposition.

This is because a vital second step is restoring what the enemy has destroyed, and the will to restore it comes in no small measure from our inner spiritual resources invested in a common vision of national health and prosperity.

The myth that atheism was a vital component of the Enlightenment is false. There were in fact two Enlightenments, one that sought to reconcile the thought of Aristotle, for example, with Christianity, as Lawrence de Medici had done in Florence, and the other Enlightenment – embodied, for example, by Voltaire, which taught that religion itself had held back progress and needed to be abolished. Devotees of the latter branch cite, by way of support, the difficulties that some scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, have encountered with the Vatican. Yet they seem unaware that Roger Bacon’s pioneering work on the scientific method was in fact sponsored by Pope Clement IV.

Those spiritual resources we will need to rebuild our civilization once the enemy is overcome are, to paraphrase Pat, like the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We can’t afford to throw this baby out with the bath water.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2011/11/dose-of-cold-hard-truth.html

Don Hank

Matt. 25:45 Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

A few weeks ago, PayPal cut off service to Julio Severo because Julio says on his blog that he agrees with the New Testament on homosexual behavior. They did this at the behest of a homosexual activist group.

Effectively, PayPal, as the only service of its kind, unilaterally decided to try and ban Julio’s blog, which has played a key role in stopping utterly totalitarian-style legislation in Brazil that would have banned speech perceived as offensive to homosexuals. Since PayPal is effectively a monopoly, they have threatened Julio’s livelihood in objection to his faith, which they want to see banned everywhere in the world.

PayPal is therefore what I call a NGE, or Non-Governmental Enforcer, of an unconstitutional speech code, circumventing the law by using methods that would be politically impossible for government to use.
And yet you will note that government has been glaringly silent and will do nothing to help Julio barring a lawsuit. And it is far from clear whether our leftist-packed judiciary will do anything to intervene on behalf of freedom of speech.

Now, not much fuss was made over Julio’s plight outside Christian activist circles, apparently because religious freedom is now being supplanted in Western minds by sexual freedom, a favorite platform of libertarians.

Yet, I have tried to warn that when you allow government (or its proxy) to tell Christians they may not speak out against what they perceive as evil, the totalitarian system will soon direct its fury against you, in what could be called the “Niemöller effect,” even if the government per se is not directly involved in this assault. Because you see, the far left (as exemplified by the Fabian Society, which has lost no time in stealthily removing your freedom since the 1880s) has always used stealth tactics to enforce laws, even laws not yet on the books. They believe they are on the side of History, and I write that with a cap because for them history is God.

Now, the West has gradually accepted the mindset that religion is nothing but a throwback and has no place in public life. In fact, they portray Christianity as a sinister system designed to enslave people. Yet when large corporations in league with corrupt government (crony capitalism) overtly take steps to eradicate Christian speech in public, then those liberty-minded individuals who generally ignore the plight of Christians, also considering us to be knuckle dragging Neanderthals, are unwittingly cutting their own throats, because if groups of bullies can tell Christians to shut up with impunity, then they can tell you to shut up as well. It is only a matter of time.

A few scant weeks have passed since PayPal censored Christian blogger Julio Severo and now, those who sat silently by are seeing the censors moving into their own territory. For libertarians generally believe that any censorship is bad and cuts into liberty. Yet, as suggested above, they foolishly look away when Christians are censored, particularly Christians who flout the Ruling Class purportedly on the “side of history.” What they fail to see is that the censorship of Christian speech is a harbinger of much bigger things to come. Because the Ruling Class despises Judeo-Christian values (as exemplified by their behavior in Europe where they import Christian-hating Muslims by the millions, and in the Muslim World, where each war they engage in invariably has the outcome of Christian persecution and decimation of the indigenous Christian populations).

This lack of compassion for Christian speech on the part of the “freedom minded,” including numerous nominal Christians, is a classic example of the “Niemöller Syndrome” as expressed in the famous statement by Christian leader Martin Niemöller:

“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.”

And then he goes on to say they came for the social democrats, and then the trade unionists, the Jews and so on and he said nothing each time and then finally:
“When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.”

We are at that point now, my friend. You didn’t speak out for Julio because you bought into the left’s propaganda that only homosexuals can be victims, never Christians. The far left in league with the New World Order taught you that Christianity is the enemy of freedom and compassion, when in fact it represents the only real freedom and compassion one can ever hope to have.

Now we are here:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/10/25/248252/Wikileaks-turns-to-fundraising-as-US-finance-companies-cut-off.htm

He [Assange] claims that since Wikileaks began publishing thousands of secret US government files and diplomatic cables online, an “arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade” has been imposed by Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union.

Each and every one of those corporations are nothing more nor less than partners in an unholy alliance with the most radical political apparatus we have ever seen in America. Along with many others, I had said many times before that there is no longer free market capitalism in America.

But loss of economic freedom is never alone. Loss of religious freedom and loss of political freedom are never far behind.

We are now officially in that latter phase when the right to freedom of speech has been abridged and soon will be completely abolished unless you and I have a change of heart.

Did Assange complain when Julio Severo was cruelly denied a living for his family, including 4 children?

I didn’t hear his protests.

And I didn’t hear yours either when WorldNetDaily alerted you to this outrage.

So don’t protest when they muzzle you and take away your voice and your vote.

Welcome to Gulag America, a prison of your own making, through your silent complicity.

Relevant:

http://laiglesforum.com/will-you-help-this-borther/2693.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/did-paypal-aid-and-abett-child-porn-sellers/2721.htm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=346825

Don Hank

I have been debating with a friend over the issue of why Ghadaffi has been treated worse than other leaders of the same region. After all, what Muslim leader has not shown unusual cruelty in the course of his reign?

One thing that my friend brought up was that Ghadaffi had instituted Sharia law.

The problem is that, while Ghadaffi did in fact make a stab at using Sharia as a reference, or sort of Constitution, he soon found that it didn’t work in the real world, and he very shortly abandoned it (see link below).

On the other hand, Obama bowed obsequiously before King Abdullah during a visit not long ago but yet Saudi Arabia has one of the most inhumane treatments of prisoners of any country in the world – thanks to its reliance on Sharia law. So here you have Ghaddafi, who abolished cruel Sharia, vs. Abdullah, whose regime relies on Sharia, and whom do the Western elites (incl notably, Obama) call cruel?

Why, Ghadaffi, of course. (Not saying he wasn’t, but why single him out if other Middle East regimes are arguably more cruel?).

Then my friend, who avidly reads the MSM, said he had read that Ghadaffi had brought poverty to his nation. So I did some internet searches on Libyan poverty and found that the only articles claiming Libyans were poor had been written during the run-up to the Libyan rebellion, by reporters in countries whose leading politicians supported the ouster of Ghadaffi. Does anyone doubt that much of what the MSM reports, and the way they report it, is largely propaganda supportive of government policy, particularly that of increasingly authoritarian governments in Europe and the US?

On the other hand, I discovered that, in 2009, the year with the most complete reporting for all countries in the region, the average per capita income in Libya was several times that in neighboring countries, namely, $9,957 (up to $13,800 this year).

Here are some reference figures for average incomes in other countries that same year:

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

Now, you will note that Iraqis, who had been under US control since 2003, or about 5 years at the time of that compilation, had an average annual per capita income of only a third that of Libya, while Afghanis, who have been under Western Coalition control since 2001, or about 7 years at that time, earned less than half the income of Libyans. Kosovo, which was also created by the Western powers through war, had some of the lowest income in all of Europe, about one-third of what Libyans earned.

So it doesn’t look as though poverty is a viable argument against Ghadaffi, even though it was a favorite in the MSM in the run-up to his murder. After all, if impoverishment of one’s people is grounds for murdering a leader, then what should we do with the leaders (notably Western ones) responsible for countries poorer than Libya?

But when I articulated these arguments, my friend then said he thought it was more of an issue of wealth distribution, with Ghadaffi receiving vastly more than his share. However, the UN’s calculation of the Gini index, which is the best indicator of wealth distribution, was not collected for the countries that I wanted to study for my analysis, namely, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So if there are no official data available, then apparently Western anti-Ghadaffi arguments were based solely on speculation and anecdotal evidence.  Yet, if you want to trade Libya anecdotes for Saudi Arabia anecdotes, for example, on the subject of wealth distribution you can swap stories ‘til you drop. Here’s a tofer for you, evidence of both human rights violations and poverty: A blogger was arrested this year in Saudi Arabia for posting evidence of poverty in that country. Not just a tad bit authoritarian? And not evidence that enough poverty exists that the government is scared word might get out.

You know what all this reminds me of?

A movie I once saw about a corrupt sheriff’s department in the south that stopped a car driven by a black northerner and tried to charge him but couldn’t think of a charge. They couldn’t get him for speeding because he wasn’t speeding. They couldn’t get him for drunk driving either because he was significantly more sober than a judge.

One of the deputies finally found a tail light out and they fined him on that flimsy charge.

That is the story of Libya’s Ghadaffi: a failed tail light and now he’s toast.

So what was the real motive behind the persecution and murder of Libya’s strong man, who had brought prosperity to his country and was apparently well enough liked that many of his countrymen laid down their lives for him?

The hypothesis that holds up best to scrutiny is that the Western power elite despises Western culture, especially the Judeo-Christian aspect, and here was an opportunity to rid the Middle East of another secular leader who tolerated Christians and Jews (he imported blacks from southern Africa as laborers and he cooperated with the West in its policies regarding Israel). After all, why else would the Ruling Class import millions and millions of Muslims to Europe knowing that they would not assimilate, that they would cause trouble, and that they oppose Christianity and its trappings? And why did every conflict with Western involvement – Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Egypt, etc. — ultimately wind up with almost all of the native Christians banished from their homeland of generally about 2000 years?

I have shown copious evidence of this anti-Judeo-Christian motive in numerous articles, and with each move that the West makes in the Middle East I become more and more convinced of it:

http://laiglesforum.com/i-told-you-so-again/2697.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

Check out these links showing the West’s extreme hypocrisy in the Ghadaffi saga:

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/africa/poverty-persists-in-libya-despite-oil-riches

Libyan average annual gross domestic product per capita has reached US$13,800 (Dh50,868) per year

(written after OBL killed, so very recent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

2009, Libya

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IRQ&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+iraq

Iraq: $2090 in 2009

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AFG&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+afghanistan

Afghanistan: $468 in 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

All 2009:

Average annual GDP per capita in Libya: $9,957

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Wealth distribution:

Gini index: NO DATA for Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-inflation.1.15359629.html?pagewanted=all

A January wage increase of 5 percent for government employees disappointed those Saudis who earn less than 10,000 riyals, or $2,666, a month, especially after other Gulf countries moved more quickly to raise wages by larger amounts.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/saudi-video-blogger-reportedly-detained-for-showing-poverty-in-riyadh/?scp=2&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi Video Blogger Reportedly Detained for Showing Poverty in Riyadh

A popular Saudi video blogger was detained this week, along with his crew, after his report on poverty in the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh, was viewed hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube, human rights activists said.

The blogger, Feras Bugnah, was arrested on Sunday with his colleagues Hosam al-Deraiwish and Khaled al-Rasheed, in connection with the latest episode of their online show, “We Are Being Cheated,” according to the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/more-saudi-women-record-driving-videos/?scp=28&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi women may not drive

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/saudi-arabia-executes-eight-bangladeshi-nationals-2011-10-07

Beheadings

The beheadings bring the number of executions in Saudi Arabia this year to at least 58, more than double than the 2010 figures. Twenty of those executed in 2011 were foreign nationals.

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF133.htm

2005

And only those with a perverse sense of what constitutes justice would have approved of the news of an Indian man in Saudi Arabia facing the ‘punishment’ of having his eye gouged out.

http://lankapolity.blogspot.com/2011/06/inhuman-treatment-for-sri-lankan.html

6/07/2011

A Sri Lankan who was found guilty for selling liquor in a public place in Taif city Saudi Arabia while being drunk has been subjected to 430 lashes

 ¹⁷And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Revelation 13:15-17

Paypal has refused service to Christian activists who outspokenly defend traditional marriage or mention that the Apostle Paul opposed homosexual behavior. They are trying to make it appear that being a traditional Christian is something reprehensible or dirty:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=346825

In so doing, Paypal has accepted responsibility for the content of web sites and products paid for through its services. That could come back to bite the agency in the butt because if it admits that it screens clients’ site content, then how does it explain that it has cheerfully served child porn sites?

If this is true, Paypal may have been an accomplice to criminal activity that could land a few of their execs in the slammer.

Here is a report showing that Paypal has enabled people to buy child porn with its service:

http://politisite.com/2010/07/23/pentagon-workers-purchased-child-porn-via-paypal/

PENTAGON WORKERS PURCHASED CHILD PORN VIA PAYPAL

WASHINGTON – Federal investigators have identified several dozen Pentagon officials and contractors with high-level security clearances who allegedly purchased and downloaded child pornography, including an undisclosed number who used their government computers to obtain the illegal material according to investigative reports.

Further, if you do a search with the search terms

drug paraphernalia paypal

you will also find some offshore sites that allow customers to use Paypal to buy illegal drugs and paraphernalia.

Paypal has made a pretense of having halted this service, but there are offshore sellers claiming that you can still use Paypal to buy the paraphernalia and small amounts of drug. See for yourself:

420 Distributors Marijuana Pipes and Online Paraphernalia

www.420distributors.com/ – CachedSimilar- Block all www.420distributors.com results

You +1′d this publicly. Undo

Buy whatever you like to smoke and you’ll discover beautiful marijuana pipes. … Buy Marijuana Pipes and Online Paraphernalia … by secure credit cards, accepted by bank transfers, Paypal payments, cash/cheques and worldwide delivery.

…

Now the hypocrites are pretending to be worried that some customers might be tainted with the pernicious idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, pretending such a viewpoint is in itself dangerous, but they themselves have no qualms about drug dealers and child porn sellers using their services!

You can contact Paypal at

apacdd@paypal.com

or call them at: 1-402-935-2050 (USA)

Remind Paypal that they agreed not to discriminate against people for their views. Tell them to keep their word and stop the persecution of Christian ministries.

The fact is, if Paypal doesn’t knock off this dangerous game soon, there are Christian lawyers who will gladly seek to have Paypal executives arrested for promoting child porn. Even if they have stopped, those executives knew they were aiding and abetting criminals and can still be prosecuted for what they did.

Obviously, Paypal does not believe in the God of the Bible and thinks they are God. But God is used to dealing with people like that.

Please take the time to pray and thank God for allowing WorldNetDaily to report on this injustice. Pray that God will protect Julio and his family no matter what the enemies of God try to do to him.

Sign the petition to PayPal to protest against persecution of Pro-Family Christians:

http://profamilyfreedom.net/

Call PayPal at:
1-402-935-2050 (USA)
4:00 AM PST to 10:00 PM Pacific Time Monday through Friday
6:00 AM PST to 8:00 PM Pacific Time Saturday and Sunday

I don’t mind one bit saying “I told you so” to all those — particularly journalists – who ignored my objective, fact-supported arguments against Western military and foreign policy in the Middle East and wound up with egg on their face as a result. (I have been trying to revive the nearly-lost scientific method and apply it to journalism, which has become nothing but a series of propaganda mills. So far, there seem to be no takers).

Obama and NATO must bear the responsibility for the fall of Kaddafi, and I have warned that this fall of a stable secular Middle Eastern leader will come back to bite the West hard in the butt.

Now Fox News and others are finally cautiously discussing the fact that the rebels are an unknown quantity and may not be as benign as they were portrayed back when they seemed to have much less chance of winning. Last night it was pointed out by Sean Hannity and Oliver North that they are a mix of tribal representatives and terrorists and their new proposed constitution already calls for sharia law, in stark contrast to Kadaffi’s secular constitution (miss him yet?).

Most telling was the remark: “Obama owns Libya.”

In case you have forgotten our direct military involvement in Libya, in addition to Obama’s repeated calls for Kadaffi (sp Gadhaffi in the linked article) to step down, here is the report on the joint French-American Operation Odyssey Dawn the day after it happened:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x617854948/France-U-S-bomb-Libyan-positions

 Back in March, I found no mainstream commentators on the left or right criticizing the West’s role in this operation or in Egypt. In fact, there has been a steady stream of “conservative” criticism against Obama for not going after Kadaffi more resolutely. (The clueless candidates — most recently Bachmann — mostly followed their clueless lead, bleating similar statements). Generally, there is a dearth of substantive criticism of any Western military involvement by left or right, no doubt for political or career reasons (many fear appearing unpatriotic, even though honest and objective commentary would ultimately save Western lives and Western embarrassment), but also due to a serious shortage of brain power. Now that a Marxist is in the White House, mainstream conservatives are finally criticizing our involvement in a Middle East conflict, but mainly because they can pin the fallout on the Left. But none of them mentioned that the regimes in post-Carter Iran, post-Clinton Kosovo, post-Bush Iraq, post-rebellion Egypt and the Ivory Coast, once ruled by secularists, are now in the hands of democratically elected Islamist leaders or mobs who openly persecute and murder Christians wholesale  (see, for example, the 4th link below on the Ivory Coast massacre of Christians presided over by the UN) and do not believe in Israel’s right to exist. (A nation that allows Muslims to live within its boundaries, whereas Muslim nations typically forbid Israelis — or often any Jews — even to visit. How fair and democratic is that?).

By contrast, I (who have nothing to lose, am not being paid for this and answer to no one) was warning repeatedly about the error in our involvement in the Middle East, not just by Democrat presidents, notably Obama, but also by Republicans (BTW, Reagan, who pulled us out of Lebanon, was an exception), and pointing out then-unheeded facts to state my case, reminding, for example, that the local Christian populations were always the ones who paid the biggest price when a stable secular leader was replaced by a mob, which eventually, inevitably, turned into an Islamic-led government with significantly less freedom for the people than under the “cruel dictators” we replaced – as well as vastly less diversity, which, oddly, Western powers prize in their countries. Israel, of course, came closer to the brink of war with each successive “win” and Iran was given a permanent pass by the West, as though these merciless enforcers of brutal Sharia law, who execute countless people for sexual misdeeds and inappropriate clothing, were lily-white defenders of human rights (as we speak, there are 2 Americans jailed in Iran for “spying,” on flimsy evidence). I sent links to each of my articles on this subject to thousands of potential readers, including major news outlets, inclucing to all Fox News personalities. News people typically do not respond, but judging by last night’s commentary by Sean, perhaps they had read some of what I said here:

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

and here

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

Olavo de Carvalho also warned you here:

http://laiglesforum.com/strengthening-the-enemies/2126.htm

Look, I don’t mind people calling me crazy. But you journalists who lead the Western world by providing information to decision makers, should know by now that, in the long run, ignoring warnings about the West’s disastrous involvement in the Middle East is going to hurt you a whole lot more than it does the warning party.

Don Hank

Don Hank

I had reported previously on Julio Severo, a man of God who almost single-handedly stopped the passage of a legislative bill in Brazil that would have effectively prohibited pastors, or anyone, from preaching the biblical view on homosexuality (for example, as expressed in Romans 1:25-28). Like Herod’s government or the Roman Empire, open persecution and imprisonment of Christians would have been mandated by law.

Julio recently reported to WorldNetDaily that a Brazilian pastor who led a criminal to the Lord and prompted him to give himself up to the police was subsequently arrested for interfering with the traditional religion of voodooism.

In March of 2009, Julio himself was forced to leave his native Brazil because he had opposed the sacred cow of the far left government – homosexualism. Not because of any government ban, but because homosexual activists had threatened to kill and harm him and his family  — just as they have done elsewhere.

Back in 1995, Julio planted a church in Brazil. A year later, Julio, who could not be silent on sin, left the church he had planted for the denomination Heal our Land Evangelical Fellowship, when the church fathers decided to support far left pro-homosexual candidate Lula da Silva, who later became president thanks in large part to the efforts of shameful “Christians” like them.

In Julio’s own words:

In 2002, as a leader of the church I had planted for them, by the authorization of the denomination’s headquarters, all churches of this denomination were sent packets with THOUSANDS of tracts with an evangelical message from evangelical leaders supporting the election of Lula as president. I burned the packet that my local church received.

Also, Bishop Robson Rodovalho, the president of Heal Our Land Evangelical Fellowship, officially supported the election of Lula.

Mainstream churches in the US and Europe are no better than they.  It is nothing less than surrealistic. “Pastors” are no longer content just to be apostate. They now see fit to promote leftwing agendas like open borders and amnesty for lawbreakers, socialism, anti-Israel boycotts, rapprochement with Islam or homosexuality, even ordaining openly homosexual “pastors” or “bishops” and performing same sex marriages.

Jesus knew this was coming when He said:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Mt. 7:15).

So did Paul:

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And do not marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:13-14).

and Peter:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways” (2 Peter 2:1,2).

Sadly, the most unusual kind of pastor we can encounter in today’s church is a solid biblical Christian who refuses to compromise on any of the principles taught by Christ and the early saints. And yet, the Bible clearly states that these traditional principles are an unalienable part of our faith:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Which brings me to the purpose of today’s message. Just a few days ago, a Christian brother and friend of Julio’s emailed me and told me Julio is again forced to pull up stakes and leave the country that had provided temporary asylum for him. As in most Western countries, there is simply no room at the inn there for Christians who refuse to compromise with sin. To make matters worse, not much safety is promised in the new refuge either, due to cartel activity, and there is no promise of permanent residence status. This brother therefore prevailed upon me to exhort my readers to help Julio as they see fit and as they can afford by going to his site Last Days Watchman Blogspot (http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/) and clicking on the Donate button.

I think you can see that a life may depend on you.

Yet, despite his apparently desperate situation, Julio wrote in his last email that God has chosen to send him to this new refuge and he is going on faith.

God grant me such faith.

Finally, besides financial support, if you or someone known to you has a possibility of securing asylum for Julio in the US or Canada, please let us know. And if you can’t help in any other way, pray for the safety of Julio and his family as they undertake this new voyage into the unknown.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40.

Julio’s site Last Day’s Watchman Blogspot:

http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence

The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul.

So, this leads to another important observation which I think is critical in fueling the push towards Christian conservatives leaning libertarian: it is clear that the form of government we have at present is chock full of the secular humanists, progressives, etc, etc. They didn’t elect themselves. They were voted in by a mass of Americans who saw no harm in that worldview, or worse, didn’t even think it was relevant. Once elected, folks like this appointed other like minded individuals, and these folks tend to stay on in government in one way or another, no matter who is in the White House. In short, John Adams didn’t mean only that the populace needed to be ‘moral and religious’ but also those in the government. In his day as in ours, the latter draws from the former; therein lies our current predicament.

Unfortunately, this is as often true of our Republican representatives as the liberal ones.

But I said that I was a ‘Constitutional-libertarian.’ Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be gangbusters about the Constitution? Why shouldn’t I just be a Republican?

As it happens, there are two basic kinds of Republicans. There are the ‘limited government’ sort, who believe that the government shouldn’t go further (or very far from) what is laid out in the Constitution. If I could count on Republicans to carry that out consistently, I might be one today. But there is another kind of Republican. This one we often dismiss as a RINO, or a Republican in Name Only, but in point of fact, this person also abides by the Constitution. No, really.

Let’s take an example: Mitt Romney. Here is a man who is a man who put Massachusetts under the thumb of Romney-Care, a close precursor to Obama-Care. His justification for why this was an ok thing for a Republican governor to do? Many claim that Obama-Care is unconstitutional but Romney-Care gets a pass, and Romney defends it. Why?

the judge clearly explained that Mitt Romney’s health care did not violate Federal or State constitutional principle because a state can regulate health care on the basis of a state’s police power. Link

And strictly speaking, the judge is correct. Romney is correct. Under the auspices of the state, one has all sorts of flexibility in heaping on layers and layers of government. So, Romney is able to walk around taking the name of Republican- rightly- because he acted within the parameters of his state’s and the federal Constitution. Do you see the missing ingredient?

A Republican like Romney doesn’t really buy into the whole ‘limited government’ thing. If a particular measure or activity is not specifically precluded from the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), they don’t see anything really wrong with it. Why, they’re perfectly happy to go along with it, provided it is done so ‘responsibly,’ that is, it doesn’t put us into huge amounts of debt.

Take away the Constitutional part, and I’m sure that loads of Republicans could go along with ObamaCare- they may have to, since they’re also willing to accept the premise that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Thus, I don’t feel like merely calling myself a Constitutionalist is sufficient. I add the ‘libertarian’ modifier in order to make clear the principle that I believe was shared by the founders. They believed that people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business by and large but if there was an extremely compelling reason for the majority to inflict its will on the minority, there would at least be a process that would protect the minority’s rights. Certainly, times change, and new circumstances manifest that weren’t dreamed of by the framers, but they built into the Constitution a way to handle such things that makes a great deal of sense to me today- not that anyone these days actually uses those mechanisms. They’re just as likely to ram it through to the Supreme Court, bypassing the legislative branch altogether, ala Roe vs. Wade.

We are now so far away from the Constitution- including at the hands of Republicans- that it is hard to see how we can make our way back. I think this is what people are seeing. Christian conservatives are coming to this conclusion, if they haven’t already. The ‘limited government’ Republicans sell them down the river all day long and the pool of available freedoms grows shallower every day. Where does one turn? Self-preservation.

A very common criticism of ‘libertarianism’ is that it essentially reduces to, “And everyone did as they saw fit.” Judges 21:25. This passage notes that this was in the days when Israel had no king. The implication of this line of argument is that apparently ‘government’ is the great plan of God- there must have been something awfully wrong with the anarchists in ancient Judea! There was! They were not ‘moral and religious’!

Those who argue in this fashion forget two extremely critical points: 1., the people in Israel during the time of the Judges were living under a system of governance that was established by God. It was not anarchy at all, but theocracy. Everyone did as they saw fit, but they ought to have done as God saw fit. Judging from the very loose human governance imposed by God on the Israelites at the time, one may guess that God didn’t think as highly of the need for ‘big’ government. But there is a second point to add to this one: 2., when finally the Israelites demanded a King, God was really, really, really, really, really, really mad.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’” 1 Samuel 8

Now, this is interesting to me, because many of those seeking the continuation of the Republic, only on purer, ‘limited government’ lines, view the Libertarian casting off of the constraints of the Republic, as a violation of God’s plan for government (and one can see why, see Romans 13), but one might imagine the passage reading, “When they said to them, ‘Give us a president to lead us.’ … it is not you they have rejected, but me they have rejected as their president.’” To the point: government is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever- and I mean NEVER- to be deemed as God’s replacement on earth. A steward, perhaps, but never a replacement.

Now, I have said all that to say this.

Let us say we do go back to the pure foundations of the Republic. We cite Romans 13 and similar passages as all the more reason to dispense with notions of ‘anarchy’ (for that is what many think when they hear ‘libertarianism’) and attempt to reinvigorate the values of the founding fathers and the Constitution they erected. What then do we find when we begin such a process? This passage in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Has anyone given any thought to the first section I bolded? One of the values of our founders was that the government derives their just powers from the ‘consent of the governed.’ Does this jibe with Romans 13 which says that God has established all authorities? So, Governments have their just powers from the consent of God, not the governed. No? In the book of Judges, did God rule through the judges by the ‘consent of the governed’? When the monarchy was established, was this by the ‘consent of the governed’? Quite the opposite! (see 1 Samuel 8:10-18) And the second section I bolded raises issues that need little elaboration.

Now, as it happens, I am inclined to believe that it is possible to reconcile these statements from the Declaration of Independence with Biblical principles. Indeed, it is because I take them very seriously that I feel like I need to add the modifier ‘libertarian’ to my self-label.

Do you know why libertarians from the right are ostensibly on the rise? It is simply because of this: on a grand level, individual by individual, moment by moment, imperceptibly, but definitely, removing their consent from this present government.

They are doing this unconsciously. It isn’t a deliberate decision. It is a movement along a spectrum, and I don’t even think that they themselves know what they are doing. But they are doing it. Confusing the matter, they aren’t alone. There are people of many diverse political and worldview stripes that likewise have decided (for different reasons, I’m sure) that they don’t like direction the ‘Republic’ has taken.

Now, as for those coming to Libertarianism from the left, I don’t think we need to dwell on them. Nor should we conflate them with those who come to it from the right, for those that do are (I think) an entirely different animal, even if some of the positions look similar.

Say what you want about those coming from the left, but rather than chastising ‘libertarians’ coming from the right, we should be willing to recognize that they are merely exercising their rights as laid out by the framers. They have read the writing on the wall, engraved deeper and deeper each time a new Congress enters session. They are slowly and deliberately withdrawing their consent to be ruled by this corrupt and invasive political system. By saying they are ‘libertarian’ they are only protecting themselves, essentially advocating for a position that says, “It looks like both sides are going to screw with me, rob me of my rights and fleece me of my wealth. I don’t trust the lot of them to act morally or with religious virtue; indeed, I expect the opposite. Perhaps I can insulate myself and my family from their overreach by urging them to leave me the heck alone in these areas…”

No one is disputing that this would only ‘work’ if lived out by those with a working moral compass. Likewise, the Republic. The difference is that there is no chance that the Republic can be restored. The clutching at libertarianism is a stop-gap position before the consent is fully and finally withdrawn (many decades from now, I expect) and the second section of the Declaration of Independence that I bolded above becomes the next, natural step.

In the meantime, we may wish to take the positions of ‘Christian’ ‘libertarians’ seriously and acknowledge that they have legitimate grievances. Indeed, it may be that the ‘Christian Libertarian’ is exactly the same as your standard genuine limited government Christian conservative Constitutionalist- the only difference being in outlook. The latter believes a restoration to our founding principles is desirable and possible, while the former also believes that a return to our founding principles is desirable… but as for possible? Not so much.

Psalm 86:15, NIV. “But you, O Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.”

I have often gotten weary of waiting for good things to happen, wondering what was taking God so long to act.

Like back in 2006, when in my article titled “Gay agenda, you’re going down,” I introduced the idea that homosexuals who had been induced to pursue the “gay” lifestyle and became sick as a result, should sue the groups that promoted the lifestyle.

Comparing smoking with homosexual practice, I had written on March 5, 2006

Now “alternative” sexual lifestyles are all the rage. They too are killing people. And again, it’s the “intellectual” cool, liberal, worldly, suave thing to do. The usual suspects are involved. All the big name colleges have special programs for promoting “alternative” sex. Businesses promote the Gay Olympics. Politicians like Barney Frank think they can foist alternative sex on people through their power positions. Hollywood uses its influence to turn the Marlboro Man into a spokesman for today’s popular deadly activity. It’s just like the bad old days of Big Tobacco, and the Grim Reaper is having a gay old time (pun intended).

World Net Daily linked to this article and I got several thousand hits the first day it ran. Emails poured in from all over the world, some from “gays.” Many were enthusiastic about my idea. Some, of course, were skeptical, and some were irate, but I remember one from a young homosexual who said “you have given this 20 year old something to think about.” I was deeply touched.

Yet it seemed as if my idea was going nowhere. No activist group seemed to have picked it up and run with it.

May 16 of this year, I wrote on diseases incurred by homosexual behavior. Again, hoping to stir some discussion and spur someone, anyone, into action, I pointed out the disparity between the way smoking and homosexual sex are treated in our politically correct environment, and how “progressives” generally accuse people who want to keep homosexuals safe of being “homophobes” while praising those who celebrate a patently dangerous, irresponsible lifestyle. I wrote:

Why do professionals march in lock step to oppose people with one kind of unhealthy lifestyle (smokers) while endorsing another group with another unhealthy lifestyle (practicing homosexuals).

Since then, an article published in World Net Daily gave me hope that this idea will some day be brought to fruition.

On Saturday, June 11, World Net Daily published an article titled “What if some other behavior cost 25 million lives?”

It was about Peter LaBarbera’s latest campaign urging the government to investigate homosexual behavior in the same way as smoking was once investigated prior to the banning of smoking in public establishments. This campaign was new to me.

On his website, LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, takes off on my idea, explaining that homosexual behavior is like the behavior of smoking, which the U.S. government investigated and addressed directly by requiring warnings and other limits and by suing tobacco companies.
LaBarbera is an effective activist and if his campaign to force government to investigate the link between homosex and disease is effective, ironically, it will benefit particularly the community that has fought it the most vigorously.

Once that link is established officially, I would urge LaBarbera’s group to push hard for lawsuits against groups that promoted homosexual behavior – on behalf of homosexuals who suffered the most from this irresponsible promotion of a lethal and morbid habit.

As I wrote in 2006:

Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, the media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians, and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.

My idea in March 2006: class action lawsuits against “gay” activists

http://laiglesforum.com/gay-agenda-youre-going-down-2/5.htm

My recent article on diseases linked to homosexual behavior:

http://laiglesforum.com/the-recompense-of-their-error/2509.htm

WND article on the AFTAH campaign:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=300089

Web site of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality:

http://americansfortruth.com/

by Don Hank

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for the US and NATO interfering in the internal affairs of Libya, the US and the rest of the West interfering in Egypt, the UN taking sides in an election dispute in the Ivory Coast and using deadly force to install the Muslim candidate, while doing nothing to stop the slaughter of 1,000 Christians, etc.

There is the old knee-jerk accusation that it is all about oil. Yet Egypt has almost no oil. Neither does the Ivory Coast.

Remember that the EU has been importing Muslims into Europe at the rate of almost a million a year and a realistic estimate forecasts a Muslim majority in about 15-25 years in that continent.

Also recall that the Fabian Society (of which Bush pal Tony Blair is a member) was founded in the 1880s for the purpose of spreading socialism worldwide, and one of their immediate goals was to eliminate Christianity. Now do you suppose engineering a Muslim majority may help achieve that goal?

Also recall that every major conflict in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion has resulted in the murder, exile and/or persecution of indigenous Christian populations that were protected until the West got involved!

This is all circumstantial evidence, you say.

But for many years, an expansion of the EU into Africa has been in the works, and now a high-ranking EU official is recommending “deep and broad” integration with Africa, ostensibly to expand the EU “market.” This means, long-term, that African nations are now to be integrated into the EU. Which in turn means that eventually the Schengen agreement (open borders) would be extended to Islamic Africa.

Remember that the EU started out as an innocent little agreement (the EEC, European Economic Community – with the emphasis ostensibly on the market), then morphed into the EC (European Community — note that “economic” is no longer the focus, not even part of the name), and now is a supranational government whose top ranking officers (the European Commission) are not even elected. We used to call that kind of arrangement a dictatorship. We also used to call the kind of wealth redistribution policies this government practices communism.

My, how times have changed. Good thing communism is “dead.”

The EU’s William Hague wants to “broaden and deepen” ties with N. Africa:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/william-hague-argues-for-broad-and-deep-economic-integration-between-the-middle-east-and-the-eu.html

Sarkozy has wanted Mediterranean Union:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10iht-france.4.5656114.html