Laigle’s Forum

Fanny-Freddy lock barn door after horse escapes

By Donald Hank

I just attended a settlement for sale of our home and while at the table, I had the opportunity to talk to the lender for the buyers, who was very savvy about the way government-backed mortgage lenders are enforcing and writing policies.

I asked him whether policies at the government sponsored lending agencies had changed. Here is what he said and what every American needs to know if we are to remain free:

Fanny and Freddy, the Democrat controlled GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) who used to all but force lenders to lend without documentation or credit are now more strict than any other lender!

Isn’t it obvious what is happening? This new crackdown is aimed to make it look like the Bush administration caused the whole problem by not regulating anything. But for decades, Fanny-Freddy had all but caused the entire banking problem by 1) refusing to regulate lending and 2) by enforcing the CRA, which forced banks and other lenders to lend without checking documents and without requiring down payments. People on welfare were getting mortgages. People with bad credit were getting mortgages. Millions of illegal aliens were even fraudulently getting mortgages, all with the blessings and encouragement of Democrat-controlled Fanny-Freddy.

Read more at http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5027

One nation under material

By Donald Hank

Whenever I meet someone who identifies himself as a “liberal” or left-winger, I immediately ask them, “What caused the banks to crash?” The invariable answer: “lack of regulation.” When I ask them to elaborate, they say, parroting Tim Geithner, that the problem is “very complex,” implying “you aren’t smart enough to understand.”

The ultimate implication is that free market principles killed the banks.

But the free market has an alibi. It left the country years ago.

Some say free market capitalism started to decline with the creation of the Fed and income tax in 1913. Others trace the decline to the 30s and FDR’s Keynesian policies.

At any rate, the Western economy has long been an unsavory mixture of government and business, which some call corporatism and others call fascism. Indeed, it is essentially the economic system introduced by Mussolini, with the difference that Mussolini did not use it to harm banks or businesses.

Read more.

Book/DVD list for your April 15 tea party

By Donald Hank

The local tea party in Lancaster PA seems to have been organized by 2 fine ladies who, on the tea party web site, also recommend a book list for invitees. Good for them. Much of the list, apparently originating with Ron Paul, is made up of the True Liberals, or libertarians, like Ludwig van Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and many others.

I emailed these ladies and thanked them for doing this and then said there were a few other books that Americans ought to read.

I wrote:

For today’s world, the most important information - most of which your school and/or college probably made sure you missed - is the story of the socialist dictators of the 20th century.

An invaluable contribution to your list would be “Harvest of Sorrow” by Robert Conquest, describing the slaughter of millions of Ukrainian farmers, “Son of the Revolution” by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro, an eye-witness account of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the 3 disk DVD set China, a Century of Revolution, directed by Sue Williams (one of the co-producers was Karma Hinton, my first Chinese teacher). You will immediately see the unmistakable similarity between the Red Guard and ACORN.

Further DVDs: Repentance, a top-notch surrealistic Russian film (RU title: Pokayanie) about a Stalin like figure, Est-Oueste (East-West), an excellent film about a French family that visits the Soviet Union in the early post-WW II years and is trapped there. The Chinese film To Live is also an artistic masterpiece but at the same time, a realistic portrayal of the tragedy of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

Others: A somewhat tedious but trail blazing book “The Black Book of Communism” was written by a group of French communists under Stéphane Courtois who decided to come clean about the death toll of the 20^th century, namely, almost 100 million innocents slaughtered throughout the world in the name of “social justice.”

Further, the Russian film Nest of Noblefolk (RU: Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo), an adaptation of the Turgenev story, shows the remarkable similarity between the mid 1800s and our 60s, with the elite classes talking about the same ideas that threw our society into moral and social turmoil. Shot in the Russian countryside, it is a cinema buff’s delight, with gorgeous photography, period-correctness in all aspects, soulful Russian gypsy music, a gripping love story with 2 intertwined love triangles and a surprise ending.

Note, however, that Turgenev’s best description of the early revolutionaries is given in his novel “Fathers and Sons,” which reflects the ideas that we considered revolutionary in our 1960s. In reality, we were a century later than the Russians in introducing ordered chaos, which is why freedom survived so long here. Nothing stands in the way of totalitarianism now - except you. And you know what? I believe in you.

Best,

Don Hank

TEA PARTIES AROUND THE NATION (find yours here):

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34348

Nationalists International

Not even out of the box and we’re already drawing enemy fire!

By Donald Hank

I recently wrote a letter to some friends essentially with the text of the following article:

A speech by Brian Gerrish shows that the organization, Common Purpose, was formed for the purpose of ramming the European Union down the throat of the UK. Their ultimate goal is a world government that would supersede national governments, just as the EU has largely superseded European nations, bypassing the people’s will.

Common Purpose is part of the International Leftist elite that wants to micromanage your country, whatever that country may be. Their bullying tactics are typical and can be traced to the earliest communist manipulators of the masses, particularly Antonio Gramsci, who proposed putting each individual in a “psychic iron cage,” making it almost impossible for people to speak their minds when their ideas are at loggerheads with the left’s agenda.

Read more

In addition to the text shown above, I had included, near the end, the following paragraphs for my European readers, mostly British friends:

I therefore propose the formation of an international organization to fight back, and I propose the name Nationalists International.

This name will sound like an oxymoron, and in the absence of a common enemy, it would be. But recall that the Soviet communists once pleaded “workers of the world unite” and the International Elite is following the very same socialist ideal. They want power, namely, your individual power and the political power of your nation to function as an independent and sovereign entity free of interference from any outside nation or group.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a great number of very favorable replies from activists over there, including one long, thoughtful response from a member of the EU Parliament who wants to pursue the idea of Nationalists International using a name of his own invention that conveys the same idea.

Just this morning, someone apparently with connections sent me the following copy of a notice received from a Green member of parliament:

Angelika Beer (MEP) and Gisela Kallenbach (MEP) invite you to

The Green Conference  on “Right-wing extremism in Europe”

European Parliament in Brussels

15^th April 2009

15:00-18:00

Room ASP 01 G2

Our guests are Dr. Christopher Husbands from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Christoph Busch, University of Cologne, Anetta Kahane, President of the Amadeu-Antonio-Foundation, and Pascale Charhon of “European Network against Racism”.

The conference will look at different forms of right-wing extremism in Europe and discuss cross-border civil society strategies against the far right. We want to explore possibilities for a common platform against right-wing extremism and racism in order to stand united against a “nationalist international” at the European Parliament elections 2009.

________

Assistant to Gisela Kallenbach
Member of the European Parliament, The Greens/EFA
European Parliament, ASP 08H259
60, rue Wiertz B-1047 Bruxelles
office: +32-2-2847339 fax: +32-2-2849339
email: gisela.kallenbach-assistant@europarl.europa.eu
web: http://www.gisela-kallenbach.eu

I was pleasantly surprised to see this because it was, in a very roundabout way, a genuine compliment. I, a retired easy-going gent armed with nothing but a computer and the truth, was now obviously seen as a very formidable enemy of the International Left, represented by 2 scared and trembling little products of the German indoctrination system cynically called the “Universität.” Angelika Beer and Gisela Kallenbach saw it necessary to pull out the nuclear option, ie, the race card, against harmless little old me and sincerely believe, in their deluded way, that they are doing something important by trying to muzzle me, not realizing that, should they succeed, a thousand others would spontaneously rise up and defend the truth. 

It later turned out that Brian Gerrish himself had posted my letter at his site just today:

http://www.cpexposed.com/comments.php

I do not know whether Gisela and Angelika had read this, although that would be the most likely explanation for their campaign against Nationalists International.

I emailed Gisela, the writer of the above euronazi email, and said

“I am the originator of the group Nationalists International that you mention in your email (attached). We are not racists. My wife is of African and American Indian descent, so my daughter is a hybrid, and further, my son is half Chinese. Do you want to talk about this?”

I love stuff like this. I am chuckling as I write. They apparently think a balding 65 year old man with creaky joints and a paunch is so much of a threat they have to declare all-out war against him.

I find it extremely difficult - nay, impossible - to take myself as seriously as these sad, humorless leftist busybodies take me.

If you are as amused as I am by this lunacy, why not drop these poor befuddled ladies a line at:

gisela.kallenbach-assistant@europarl.europa.eu

Ask them if they really think one free human being in America armed with nothing but a computer and the art of language is such a dire threat that they have to hold an emergency high-level conference in Europe looking for strategies to ward him off! You are also certainly free to remind them that in your country, calling someone a racist is an offense with legal consequences — unless you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused is indeed a racist, and the burden of proof may be fairly heavy. Perhaps they can run all over Europe slandering people with relative impunity, but when they turn their slander against someone outside their turf, that may be a different matter. Are they prepared to accept the consequences?

All right, international friends of truth and freedom, it didn’t take long to find out who our enemy is. He has dutifully announced himself.

Now, in the name of God, let us stand, gird ourselves, and engage him, not in animosity but in love, prayer and compassion.

After all, he is empty and lost in a godless world of his own choosing and his own making. With a little wisdom and patience, and with much sincere prayer, we can help free him of his self-inflicted shackles.

Stop supporting evil in high places

The following is an article published in the American Spectator in 2005, but the ideas it contains have largely been ignored since then, as “Christian” groups continue to use the language of the Left to support unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and to confer respect to lazy, ignorant, ambitious and/or evil politicians who do not deserve your respect. We should have learned our lesson since Roe v Wade but have learned nothing, instead following the lead of the ungodly in churches and Christian organizations that claim to be helping but side with the enemy.

John Haskins, whose web site The Underground Journal, I highly recommend, is a warrior who has never been known to compromise with the Left. He and colleague Gregg Jackson pointed out some time ago that same-sex marriage has never in fact been legal anywhere because the Supreme Court judges of states whose courts supported it do not have the support of the Constitution in so doing and therefore do not deserve your respect and the legitimization you confer to their decisions. These officials are nothing but usurpers, their deeds are unlawful and as long as you honor them with your respect, you are an accessory to their crime. Haskins believes that “pro-family” and “Christian” groups make matters much worse when they plead cases from the standpoint that these leftist judges are legitimate and their decisions are legally binding. The mantra is “we must avoid a constitutional crisis at all costs,” but the crisis is already here and was caused by the judges themselves. So what this translates to is: “we must avoid resolving the constitutional crisis.” A constitutional challenge is precisely what these lawless judges need to keep them in check, but everyone just follows the lead of the pseudo-conservatives and “moderates.” The result so far is a Marxist “president” who cannot prove he meets the qualifications to be president - thanks to a spineless Supreme Court that will not honor any challenges, no matter how reasonable and well-founded they are, and thanks to a populace that has been indoctrinated by schools, universities and media into accepting the unacceptable.

I have always argued that public officials have no right under the Constitution generally to change natural language and specifically to tamper with the definition of the word “marriage” as it has existed for millennia in all world cultures - not just Christian ones. In natural languages as they have evolved everywhere, independently of each other over the years, the equivalents for the English word “marriage” have always referred to a union between a man and a woman. Although in some Muslim countries and in the Mormon community, there has been a provision for men marrying more than one woman, in no traditional community has there ever been a provision for marriage between same-sex partners, which has universally been regarded as an absurd notion. It still is absurd and always will be, but the International Left has decided to carve out a new “victim” group, ie, homosexuals, and has invented the notion of “gay marriage” to prop up this group in return for their loyalty. Why the expenditure of so much effort for such a tiny group?

There are several reasons, including the fact that traditional man-woman marriage is an obstacle to the Left’s agenda of controlling children’s minds from cradle to adulthood and beyond, but the main reason is to undermine Christianity, which has traditionally stood in the way of the Left. The ultimate goal is to charge anyone who opposes same-sex unions with a “hate” crime. This effectively criminalizes certain parts of the Bible, opening to door to further-reaching “hate” crimes, for example, banning the mention of hell by preachers.

 It wasn’t until Evangelical groups began promoting the diabolical idea of partnering with government that the Left was able to overcome the religous obstacles to their goals, as witnessed by the fact that close to 30% of young evangelicals voted for Obama last election. In addition, 54% of Catholics also voted for Obama. Without the “Christian” vote, the current rapid erosion of the free market and nationalization of banks and business (both communist policies) would not have happened. The Obama debacle has taken on new significance since the latest WND report that Obama is now filling White House posts with Muslims, some of whom are terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

What can you do? Roundly reject the language of the Left: For instance, don’t ever say or write the words “gay marriage,” “choice” when referring to the murder of the unborn, or “strike down” when referring to laws opposed by the Supreme Courts of states or the US Supreme Court. And do not allow your friends or family to use the newspeak of the Left. These soulless people can usurp power only if we lend them credibility. We have been doing that for too long. Listen: When was the last time your pastor said homosexual marriage and homosexuality are sinful? When has he spoken of a hell to which the lost are destined?

If you can’t remember, then you are probably supporting evil in the form of offerings and tithes. Time to leave. Time to say no. Time to fight or lose everything you love and everything you have always wanted for your children.

Donald Hank

No More Striking Down Constitutions

Why are even conservatives afraid to call things by their name?

By John Haskins
Published 11/8/2005 12:05:11 AM

Conservatives contemplating George Bush’s judicial legacy — and his bizarre vision of Harriet Miers among the nine highest potentates in the democratic world — should expect no counter-revolution. True, he promised constitutionalist judges. But talking constitutionalism (like talking Christianity) is easy.

Our governing elite punishes unvarnished clarity about our Constitution. Intellectual honesty, for lawyers, schoolteachers, psychologists, professors and actors, is costly. Most lie low or join the enforcers. Surely even Roberts, Scalia, and Alito see the gap between them and the Founding Fathers, for whom precedent was impotent against the Constitution.

Absurd though it is, only “constitutional” conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal “mainstream” savors precedents they’ve shot down — or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent. But the obvious is hard to see, especially as monumental, abstract questions are addressed in isolation from thoughts of personal advancement. The realm of the mind and methodology that do this are not the pragmatic part that wins court cases, campaigns, and useful friendships. The former withers when neglected for the latter. Even “all star” conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.

Read more.