Laigle’s Forum

Dem’s Divas Destiny and Darkness

By Rev. Michael Bresciani

The battle between Democratic hopefuls Obama and Clinton has held the spotlight in American politics for the past year and has been upstaged only slightly by the occasional antics of a few divas like Hilton, Madonna or Aguilera.

In the 19^th century many towns in America employed a lamplighter. Besides being somewhat of a watchman, his job was to light the oil wicks or candles in the street lights each evening and quench the flame early each morning. The lamplighter has dissolved into history; sadly it seems some of the light has gone with him.

Figuratively, the greatest lamplighters in American history may have been Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, Joseph Pulitzer and President Grover Cleveland. Together they designed, promoted and on October 28th, 1886 inaugurated the Statue of Liberty. Her flaming torch has stood as the light of freedom, truth and justice in the minds people throughout the world for over one hundred years.

Americans usually welcome the light and those who are considered to be luminaries are readily recognized and applauded in most cases. Celebrating the light seen in others is not new or something only Americans do. Over twenty centuries ago Jesus spoke of those who ‘rejoiced’ in the light of John the Baptist (Jn 5:35). Sadly, we know how that all ended.

In Barack Obama’s political rallies, audiences, as expected, have their gazes fixed on Obama’s face as they focus on his rhetoric. If someone could remain completely detached and turn to look at the faces of his audience they would discover a phenomenon that is impossible to miss; they are awed. It is as if they have seen a light.

After discovering Obama’s association with Rev. Wright, bomber William Ayers and his position on gays and abortion, his followers remain undaunted. They hang on his every word and the promise of change as if it were salvation itself. It strains the credulity of anyone with only entry level discernment. It raises and renews the wisdom of the once overused but now almost forgotten adage ‘there is none as blind as they who will not see.’

Add to Barack’s doubtful associations his aversion to saluting the flag, his opinion of people who “cling to religion and guns” and his wife’s lack of pride in the country and that raises and nearly answers yet another question. The question was also posed by Christ “…If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”  (Mt 6:23).”

Obama is certainly sincere and his convictions are firmly rooted in that sincerity but again “sincerity is no substitute for the truth.” It is possible to be sincere and very wrong at the same time. President Lincoln said that if he was right about something it wouldn’t matter in the end what all his critics said about it. Conversely, he exclaimed that if he were wrong “angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

If Americans listened a little less to her political pundits and a little more to her prophets she might see that changes are exactly what she is going to get. The inevitability of those changes is the only thing that cannot be questioned; the nature of the changes is still open.

Whenever people regard a light it usually means they are looking for direction in a dark situation. They follow the light and it brings them to their destiny whether it’s what they hoped for or not.

Too many have concluded that it is the deep divisions and polarizations that have brought unrest to the country. Some say the Democratic wins in the house in 2006 and the toppling of Hastert in Illinois and Jenkins in Louisiana are proof that America wants out of a GOP run government and conservatism is dying along with the entire Republican effort. Few are heeding the voices of those who are saying it is the moral, ethical and theological downturn that is fueling discontent, crime, confusion and darkness.

The globalization of our world is underway, with Europe leading the way with some 64 satellite nations at her side to date. America has been following the same trends as our euro-counterparts, and the leaders we choose now will determine whether we fall into the fold or stand as a bastion of freedom and what is right in the world. Such noble aspirations are more scoffed at these days than ever before and that is proof positive that we are at destiny’s door more than any other time in our history.

When people look at a presidential candidate in the same way they see a pop culture figure, we are all in a mess. Following the “light that is darkness” will get us someplace but it will not be where we want to be. All too often the negative aspect of the messenger or the prophet is all that is seen or heard but for those with a “cup is half full” mentality, the positive side is seen as well. God loves America and he does not want to see it fall or be judged. He said it like this; how do you read it? Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Pr 14:34)

Rev Michael Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online sites and magazines. His articles are now read throughout the world. For more articles, news, movie reviews and more visit The Website for Insight at http://www.americanprophet.org/

Keywords;

Dem’s,divas,destiny,darkness,Obama,Clinton,Hilton,Madonna,Aguilera, Bartholdi, Joseph Pulitzer,Grover Cleveland,Lady Liberty,Rev Wright,Hastert,Jenkins,Illinois,Louisiana,John Baptist,Jesus,conservative,religion,guns,religious news,Bresciani,GOP

A Moral Case for Overthrowing Saddam

By PVBLIUS

America had a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps you may remember that in 1991, President Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, but promptly abandoned them and the Iraqi people were left again under Hussein’s rule, but this time with the sanctions applied against Iraq as punishment (see http://puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news030412e.html for more details). The moral toll of our abandonment of the Iraqis is bad enough; but add to that the responsibility for the number of children (and adults) who died in Iraq under the sanctions who would not have died if we had kept our commitment at the time. A reasonable estimate of the number of children who died as a result of the Oil for Food sanctions is 350,000, and so it can be seen that a simple act of abandonment and political expediency by Bush Sr. had terrible results. As a nation, we followed Bush Sr. and abandoned the Iraqi people even though they heeded our push for uprising, and so the results and responsibility are ours.

Such wrongs require restitution, and simply the best way to do so has been to finally keep our previously neglected commitment to aid the Iraqi people in being free from Saddam. Some have argued that 4000 soldiers dead is a heavy toll , or the civilian dead is a heavy toll, or that we should be entitled to the Iraqi oil in payment for the Iraqi people’s freedom, but such ideas neglect the fact that we have the blood of many Iraqis on our heads. The soldiers who died did not die in vain, as those opposed to the war in Iraq claim - they died honorably by helping our nation to pay a long overdue debt to the Iraqi people.

Anticipating Reasons for Disagreement

Some may claim that 350,000 children couldn’t have died under UN sanctions. While the exact number of dead is not known, a number of estimates have been made on the number of dead children resulting from the Oil for Food embargo. The numbers range from over a million, to as low as 350,000. The 350,000 is considered a conservative and realistic number, and is still quite large (and does not include adults!). For an extensive evaluation of the estimates of childhood deaths, see http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html.

Others may say we are not responsible as a nation, and therefore the deposing of Saddam and the Iraq War were not justified. At a simple level, to deny our responsibility as a nation is akin to someone who fathers a child but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for that child. Did our nation make a commitment to the Iraqi people it hadn’t kept? Did the Iraqi people rise up in good faith, expecting us to keep our commitment? Did an embargo get placed upon Iraq because we failed to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam? Did the embargo result in the death of many people? If the rhetorical questions are not sufficient to establish our responsibility, consider the Biblical case of Saul, David, and the Gibeonites as reported in 2 Samuel 21.

The Gibeonites were a nation of Hivites that feared the oncoming Israelites and tricked the Israelites into making a covenant for safety. The covenant could be argued to be illegal as the Israelites were not to make a covenant with any of the peoples in Canaan, but to drive them out. However, they were expected by God to keep their commitment once it had been made. Likewise, our leader made a commitment to the Iraqi people, and God expected us to keep it, even if the circumstances around it are not in keeping with our law or government structures.

You may say: “Ah, but two wrongs don’t make a right. We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq without declaring War, and therefore we should leave as quickly as possible.” Again, consider the actions of David with the Gibeonites. Hundreds of years after the covenant was made, David was told by the Lord that a famine has hit the land because of Saul’s attempts to exterminate the Gibeonites. David asked the Gibeonites how the crimes could be atoned for, and they desired to execute seven of Saul’s descendents. Note that the Law in Deuteronomy 24:16 does not allow for children to be put to death for the sins of their fathers; yet David, at the request of the Gibeonites, handed over seven of Saul’s descendants to be put to death. If it was against the Law, why did the Lord honor David’s actions by again hearing the prayers of the Israelites and ending the famine? (An excellent commentary on the Gibeonite situation can be found at: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1021.htm)

Perhaps such a situation strikes you as counterintuitive, but consider the Lord’s sending His own Son as a sacrifice on the cross. God used the actions of sinful leaders to accomplish a good in that the death of Jesus paid for the penalty of sin. What you see in these examples is that keeping and honoring a commitment is incredibly important to the Lord, and restitution for a broken commitment is of great importance to Him as well. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the restitution process that is occurring in Iraq (even if inadvertently accomplished by sinful man) is pleasing to the Lord, and therefore important to us!

Homosexuality 101:

Dr. Julie Harren Hamiltion tells you what you need to know but aren’t supposed to.

http://www.homosexuality101.com/

Libraries turn to gaming to attract “readers”

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/13/arts/State-of-Libraries.php

A FRIEND of Laigle’s Forum sent this in:

BAM–this is one of the many things that DHS, HPHS and every other high school in the country needs!

http://www6.district125.k12.il.us/clubs/truthseekers/default.html

Spread the word! Post it! Tell your kids to start one!

This is the high school club that is sponsoring the Ben Stein film Expelled at a local multi-plex theatre.

For those of you who are out of state, this is a large and excellent suburban high school in IL.

Massive oil reserves found in North Dakota

http://motownsports.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57591.html

This just in from Nancy Goettman: 

Alan Keyes to announce break with GOP in Hazleton, PAApril 13, 2008

  HAZLETON, Penn. - Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes has chosen April 15 to make a major announcement of his intentions, following indications he has broken with the GOP.

A life-long Republican who has increasingly cited the party’s failure to match conservative rhetoric with actual performance in the political arena, Keyes said he will reveal his reasons for departing the GOP at a press conference scheduled for 8:30 pm ET, at the Best Western Genetti Inn in Hazleton, PA.

The event will be video-streamed live at Keyes’ website, http://www.alankeyes.com/.

Keyes added that he is looking to the Constitution Party as a possible home for his future efforts in politics, including a potential run for president in the 2008 general election.

“No other ‘third party’ is as well-established as the Constitution Party,” said Keyes. “They’ve been around since 1992, and have built a significant grassroots presence among patriotic, Constitution-minded citizens - with a registered membership of over 350,000. Conservatives have a home in the CP that they can find nowhere else, given the decline in the Republican Party’s credibility as a voice and vehicle for conservatism.”

Regarding his potential third-party candidacy for president in the fall, Keyes said, “I believe people deserve a choice. They certainly deserve a conservative choice - something neither John McCain, Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama can offer voters. All they can offer is empty promises based on liberal track records.”

Symbolic of Keyes’ break with the Republican Party is a caricature of the GOP logo - upside down - on the front page of his website.

The Constitution Party will hold its nominating convention April 23-26 in Kansas City.

According to Dan Smeriglio, a Keyes supporter who is helping to arrange the event, the former Reagan administration diplomat chose to make his announcement in Hazleton because of the town’s strong stance on illegal immigration.

“I understand a good portion of his speech next week will center on illegal immigration,” Smeriglio said. Smeriglio and a group he represents, Voice of the People USA, have been vocal in opposing illegal immigration since Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta introduced the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in 2006 - thrusting Hazleton into national prominence in the movement to stem illegal immigration.

Keyes - who has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory - served as Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, as well as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented U.S. interests in the UN General Assembly.
 

Stand your ground

By Helen Valois

Deputy Grassroots Coordinator

“You’ve convinced me that you are going to help put Hillary Clinton
or Barack Obama in the White House.”

This is how a friend of mine tried to wrap up a political discussion last weekend.  The circumstances were unusual, even if the comment was not.  Usually, you’ll find a lone Keyes backer being numerically outgunned by a bunch of RINOs.  In this case, the sole McCain supporter found himself faced with an enthusiastic and well-informed circle of Keyes people.

It is interesting that he had nothing to say about our arguments themselves.  A good guy at heart, he conceded the moral and civic points that we raised.  Then, disappointingly, he fell back on the same old “lesser-of-two-evils” approach that the Republican leadership has been serving up for decades now.  The idea that the only way to win is to concede defeat at the very outset, by backing a candidate who doesn’t stand for conservative principle in the first place, has itself come to fruition in the presumptive nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate for 2008.  Is this not, in and of itself, enough to convince us at last of the wrong-headedness of this approach?

This type of thinking constitutes textbook “enabling behavior,” in the vernacular of popular psychology.  Just as the wife of an alcoholic is supposed to “save the family” by calling in sick for her hung-over husband, we conservatives are being pressured to “save the White House for Republicans” by facilitating the socialist mentality.  “What are you trying to do, get me fired?” the husband demands, if she mentions any qualms.  It is easy to see that, if he did lose his job, the fault would be his own and not hers.  Why then can we not see that it is up to the politician to earn the conservative vote, and not up to the conservatives to put into office a politician who has chronically failed them? 

The pressure to be political enablers needs to be staunchly resisted.  The once-great Republican party has, in nominating John McCain, crossed the line from viable to suicidal, and many well-intentioned Americans know it.  That is why they are saying they will not vote for him, even at the cost of not voting at all.  Yet to allow the RINOs to effectively disenfranchise us is not acceptable, either.  So, where do we go from here?

Before we look ahead, let’s look back.  The Republicans are the heirs of the Lincoln legacy, but what does that truly mean?  During the era of slavery, there was a party - the Democrats - that refused to stand against the ungodly and un-American evil of its time.  There was another party - the Whigs - that let its opposition to slavery be watered down to the point of irrelevance.  It was in this context that a third party known as the Republicans providentially arose.   

Lincoln didn’t make it his life’s objective to rehabilitate a dying political party.  During the nineteenth century crisis of the Republic, he saw to it that American identity and sovereignty - as well as the dignity and life of every American - was, in principle, preserved.  There were challenges, and unspeakable sacrifice, but Lincoln’s cause was ultimately the cause of God Himself, and it was God who saw it through.

In our own time, we have again seen the American mission assaulted not only from without, but also from within.  Socialism renamed “liberalism” has been foisting an ersatz version of our country’s character upon us, while the existing party structure has proven unable or unwilling to stand in the gap.  God, however, is still able to achieve His designs for this world, and it is with Him that we must finally cooperate.

Alan Keyes, as you know, has ended his lifelong affiliation with the Republicans.  This is a step the Ambassador has not taken lightly, and neither should any of us who are considering a similar move.  He has chosen to seek the presidential nomination of the Constitution party, and he asks that you prayerfully consider supporting him in this path.

Many of you took the time to respond to the questionnaire we sent out regarding whether or not Alan ought to go third party.  The overwhelming majority of responses were in favor of his doing so.  You wrote:

• Alan has always been the best choice, and the Constitution Party is an exciting, hopeful option for the millions of disappointed Americans who do not know another choice exists.
   
• I will vote for Dr. Keyes based on his life’s work and not on his party affiliation.
   
• I have always voted Republican, but today we have no “life” protection under their party.  It is a fearful thought to envision life under the domination of any current (major party) candidate.
   
• Either way, I am supporting Alan Keyes for President of the United States of America.  I have voted for him before and I will continue to vote for him until elected.
   
• As a Republican it is hard not to fall in line, but if Alan Keyes joins the Constitution Party and runs as its candidate, I will not only vote for him; I will switch my party affiliation.
   
• Understanding all that he stands for, I will vote for Alan Keyes no matter what!
   
• We the people have no choice in this election.  As soon as Alan Keyes makes it formal and runs on a third party ticket, I will be joining that party with him.  True patriots have no choice.

Dr. Keyes has frequently noted that he is running for President because principled conservatives are being offered no way of participating in politics in this country without violating their own beliefs.  To say that Alan is the “best choice” expresses this fact, yet inadvertently masks another reality.  As Americans and as believers, we recognize that there are things that lie beyond the reach of our own decisions.  Keyes truly is the choice about which we have no choice; a vote in acknowledgment of that which cannot - strictly speaking - be voted on in the first place.  We too hold certain truths to be self-evident.  Among them are the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that if John McCain fails to be inaugurated next January, he and the Republican leadership will not need to look beyond the frames of their own mirrors in determining exactly who is to blame.
 

A reminder

Please donate what you can to help, as Alan travels to Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to announce his future plans - at a press conference to be streamed live on Tuesday at 8:30 pm ET - and as he also travels with his staff to the Constitution Party Convention a week later in Kansas City.

Thanks so much for your financial support!

You can contribute by going to www.alankeyes.com/donate.php

Commentary by Don Hank

HILLARY and McCain in defense of Americans: You aren’t bitter, just bigots

Obama recently suggested that religion, guns and border security are for “bitter” rural people.

Hillary countered this by saying Pennsylvanians are resilient. Clinton, known for her elitist views on everything, also accused Obama of being an elitist.  But she didn’t defend rural Americans on the religion, guns or border security issue.

John McCain, who has been out of touch with voters throughout his career, says Obama is out of touch with Americans. McCain didn’t take issue with Obama on the religion, guns or border security remark either.

So while neither of the other candidates explicitly takes issue with Obama on his religion, guns and border security statement, both apparently agree that we bigots aren’t necessarily bitter.

How sweet of them to come, at least conditionally, to our defense.

Hear the two pots and the kettle spouting off here.

__

OPRAH supports Vagina Monologue author Eve Ensler

At the LYNCUP site, I had introduced readers to feminist icon Andrea Dworkin, quoting passages from her book Woman Hating that openly and unambiguously endorse adult-child sex. I had pointed out the hypocrisy of this woman, considered an authority on domestic violence, not just sanctioning but actually endorsing something that is obviously a form of violence against children. If you remember nothing else, please remember that there is an unbroken bloodline between the older feminists and the social “change” advocates of today (gay agenda, domestic violence industry, GLSEN, liberal/progressive educators, psychologists, media, Hollywood, etc), as Americans for Truth makes clear in an article on Eve Ensler, the author of Vagina Monologues, the obscene play intended for young people. The article exposes a conversation Ensler had with a 6 hear old girl, asking her intimate questions about her vagina. Ensler too has advocated adult-child sex.

Oprah, who operates a school for girls, likes and supports Ensler.

These are the kind of people who are having increasing influence on public education, having made great strides in all states, but particularly in California, where educators are required by law to endorse homosexuality; Massachusetts and Montgomery County, Maryland, where homosexuality is endorsed in the early grades; and almost all public schools throughout the US, which are poised to celebrate a Day of Silence intended to support homosexuals, who are supposedly being abused, but where in fact Christian kids are the ones who suffer raw assaults on their faith at every turn. David Parker’s son was beaten by gay activists for his father’s Christian stand.

For Christians, every day is a day of silence.

What can you do?

If your school is celebrating the DOS on April 25, call the superintendent or principle and explain why this is unfair to Christian kids, that homosexual kids are more protected than kids from traditional families, that by granting a special day only to this special group, the school is in fact politicizing education, and that in any case, it is disruptive, adding still another distraction.

If they won’t listen, keep your child home that day, and make it a day of prayer and fasting.

__

UK Constitution to be scrapped, without the people’s permission

It is happening here in the US as well. It is called the New World Order and, as the name suggests, it is Brave New World translated to reality. Remember how Bush Sr. talked incessantly of this New World Order, sounding more like a wizard than a president? Mr. McCain, one of its implementers, may be our next president.

Though conservatives reject McCain, Big Brother has chosen him to take us another step toward the North American Union, the replacement of the US Constitution. Once that happens, the perfidy will be complete.

For a glimpse of what awaits our country, click here.

__

MORE on Britain’s national crisis

When a government turns criminal, people need to take on a moral code of their own. In Britain, youngsters used to seeing their government behaving lawlessly, are assuming that immorality is acceptable. Who is left to judge them?

Click here for Jeff Randall’s “spot-on” article “In a land without morals, it’s no wonder children are killing each other.”

There’s a crisis on our streets, especially in London, and it has nothing to do with the cost of housing. As the blame game is played out between ministers and bankers over why mortgages are suddenly much more expensive, the price of life in parts of Britain’s inner cities has hit rock bottom.

 __

OLD hippies never die…

Did you know that Muslims are victims of us?

Click here for “Victims on Parade at NYU ‘Academic Freedom Conference’”

__

I, Sir, am a rightwing Christian bigot! (Whap! bam!)

Thinking about his next item, I couldn’t help remembering the Steve Martin movie The Jerk, where Steve Martin is confronted by a bigot who tells him he will help keep away the n…gers, and Steve indignantly says, “I, Sir, am a n….ger!” and proceeds to punch his lights out.

It seems the folks at Next Theatre blog consider grassroots Americans hate mongers for opposing the presentation of the play Angels in America at Deerfield High School. They counter with an article at their blog NextTheatre entitled Rightwing Christian bigots attack Deerfield High School, referencing a parent who “was so horrified that she formed North Shore Student Advocacy to lend legitimacy to her hatemongering, fear-peddling campaign against the devils at Deerfield.”

The leftwing elitists recommend sending a letter of support to the superintendent of the Deerfield District.

Friends, let’s counter this the way we successfully countered the slime attack on state rep. Sally Kern when she opposed the gay agenda in her state.

Here is how:

Email Superintendant George Fornero at gfornero@dist113.org and tell him the real bigots are the ones who are attacking universal standards of decency. Tell him decency is not a construct of Judeo-Christianity, as is rumored lately in elitist circles, but in fact is and has been accepted everywhere in the civilized world, except at Deerfield High School, for thousands of years, and you are not about to give up decency without a fight. Tell him to stand down from his untenable attack on decency or turn over the job to someone who will.

Oh, and you can tell him that if some parents object to decency, they might want to send their kids to a private school that endorses age-inappropriate subject matter such as obscenity and explicit sex scenes and language in books, plays and the like.

 Ballot access needs for Constitution Party, new 3rd party, independent ticket, whatever materializes:The most problematical states for ballot access (and we must do this quickly) are:

Texas

Oklahoma

North Carolina

Arizona

West Virginia

We know we have activists in all of these states, with the possible exception of Oklahoma.  If you even know anyone sympathetic to the Save America Summit cause in these states, we implore you to enlist their support.

Texas is a particular challenge, as only 3,000 of the necessay 80,000 petition signatures have been collected.

Please - whatever state you’re in - go to http://www.constitutionparty.com/, click on “State Parties,” click on your state on the map that appears, contact yorr state chairmen, ascertain the status of ballot access, ask if there are any other needs, and offer to help.

FYI, the contact info for critical states:

Constitution Party of Texas
Contact: Bryan Malatesta
Email: chairman@cptexas.org
Address: P.O. Box 290730
                Kerrville, TX  78029
Phone: 866-CPTEXAS
Website: http://www.cptexas.org/

Constitution Party of Oklahoma
Contact: Thom Holmes
Email: holmesta@hotmail.com
Address: 4449 East 99th Street
                Chandler, OK  74834
Phone: 918-866-2256
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/cpoklahoma

Constitution Party of North Carolina
Contact: Chris Campbell
Email: cambycam@justice.com
Address: 801 Hepplewhite Ct
                Fuquay-Varina,, NC  27526
Phone: 919-557-3065
Website: http://www.constitutionpartync.com/

Constitution Party of Arizona
Contact: Nancy Spirkoff
Email: arizonacp@gmail.com
Address: 17609 West Evans Drive
                Surprise, AZ  85388
Phone: 619-571-7525

Constitution Party of West Virginia
Contact: Denzil Sloan
Email: info@cpwv.org
Address: P.O. Box 4300
                Martinsburg, WV  25402
Phone: (304) 386-4431
Website: http://www.cpwv.org/

Remember, this is not an exhaustive list of states on which CP ballot access is assured, just the most difficult ones.

You may also want to stay current visiting Ballot Access News, at http://www.ballot-access.org/.

Important Note:

It is not a done deal that Save America Summit will find it possible to support the eventual Constitution Party Candidate.  The more prominent names being discussed - such as Dr Alan Keyes, Chief Justice Roy Moore, and Dr Jerome Corsi - are stellar, and certainly would garner our support.  But should the party choose to go the “good ol’ boy,” “business as usual” route and nominate some unelectable ticket, too far out of the patriotic mainstream to gather key endorsements, we will have to look elsewhere.

As none of the other 3rd parties - Green, Libertarian… - are likely to nominate anyone worthy of support, this means a really rush-rush drive for ballot access for a new party or independent ticket.  Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

In Jesus the Christ,

Charles Lewis

Exhausted Moderator

Save America Summit

And a little child shall lead them

by Donald Hank

In a recent column, Olavo de Carvalho writes (available in Portuguese here):

Here [in the US] even children know what Brazilian political scientists, media commentators, and strategic analysts are far from even imagining: that the real political debate in the USA is not actually between Republicans and Democrats but between globalists and Americanists, and nothing, absolutely nothing that happens in the world today - particularly in areas most directly subject to American influence - can be understood unless seen from this perspective.

By “children” de Carvalho refers specifically to Kyle Williams, the child prodigy who debuted in journalism at the age of 12. The author is being much nicer than he would have to be.  What he says about Brazilian analysts also applies to American analysts who make their living writing and speaking about American politics.

Indeed, the terms Republican and Democrat are completely outmoded and need to be scrapped as soon as possible.  In fact, the term “conservative” has been so badly distorted in recent years that some conservatives refuse to call themselves that.  It is by no means necessary to abandon the term conservative, however, just as it is vitally important to shore up its original definition it and to reject its redefinition.  Redefinition is a trick of the left.  For example, I wonder how many of us have noticed the invention of the terms “red states” and “blue states,” deliberately referring to the left as blue and the right as red.  You and I are supposed to forget that red, the color of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution, is in any way associated with the left.  Through this chicanery, “red” has been made to mean just the opposite of what it once did.  Likewise, the term “Red China” has been dropped.

Thus, the left, regardless of their party, has redefined both left and right, both conservative and progressive.  Good conservatives are now supposed to tow the UN party line and accept as gospel the notion of global warming as a human artifact.  Likewise, “conservative” pastors piously admonish us to support politicians who will take money from the pockets of hard-working Americans and distribute it into the hands of third world dictators (just as the Panama Canal has been transferred to the Panamanian oligarchy). They also warn us ominously against “nationalism,” but this is their code word for sovereignty, a concept without which no nation has ever existed. The “Christian left” is supposedly the new Christianity, but it is in fact the old apostasy that Jesus clearly rejected. And it is aimed at destroying our nation by dissolving it in an EU-like frog stew.

Thus it is entirely fitting for millions of Americans that a presidential candidate should place his hands directly over his crotch while the national anthem is played.  Fitting for two reasons:  Firstly, because “good Christian” Americans, equating patriotism with idolatry, believe it is unchristian to love one’s country.  And secondly, because since the Clinton era, it seems more fitting that the seat of male hedonism should be preferred over the heart, the seat of pure sentiment, when contemplating our country.  Freedom no longer refers to conscience but rather to the celebration of sin. The symbolism is perfect.

Thus we have been carefully prepared in Pavlovian fashion to accept our demise as a nation. From open borders and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens to the Mexican truck route, the Law of the Sea Treaty, SPP and the first steps toward a US-Canadian supranational army, the slate of our national memory is quickly being wiped clean and the idea of sovereignty has already been converted to a museum piece for many. 

Our chances of winning the war against our internal enemy seem bleak.

Of course, so did the chances of winning the American Revolution, as people often point out, reminding that few believed back then that our ragtag army could defeat the most powerful army and navy in the world.

But we have a different problem now.  The enemy is so cleverly camouflaged that only the keenest of observers can identify him as such.  And worse than that, it is hard to identify even our friends in this crucial battle for America.  Many people who are otherwise conservative still strongly support President Bush.  I must admit, I too once thought that opposition to G.W. Bush automatically meant opposition to conservatism.  I blush to say that.  However, when the president supported the amnesty bill last summer and when his administration convicted two innocent border patrol agents for protecting America, there was no longer any question in the mind of anyone who was paying attention to the news that President Bush opposes US sovereignty and our Constitution.  If the left had not prepared the ground as carefully as they have since about the 1960s, Bush and his RINO entourage wouldn’t have been able to initiate the impending coup that seems inevitable.  But for much of the past century, the left has infiltrated the education system, the media, the campus, much of our government, and destroyed most of our moral defenses. And they did so through the intermediary of a conservative icon linked in the minds of many to Ronald Reagan. Like Israel in the time of Jeremiah, we are in the hands of false priests and false prophets.

Recently, WorldNetDaily ran an article that supported the idea of a third-party challenge to the miserable choice offered by our monolithic Republican-Democrat hybrid party, one that resembles for all the world the kind of choice available to voters in Cuba and China.

Those who still understand the concept of sovereignty and its importance to our nation now look to Alan Keyes, whose candidacy was supported in the article.

Let us not look at the formidable odds, and let us not consider a lost battle as a lost war.  Let us look to God, our Creator and our protector.  And let us pray fervently for the salvation of our country, where, in thousands of public schools, a day of silence will soon be held to protect the sexualization of teens and children.

If we fail, might we not think that God has perhaps given us over to uncleanness (Romans 1: 24)?

Who would blame Him?

    By Donald Hank
 

According to an article in the Washington Post, John McCain has now said that we need border barriers. You may say that is not too bad for a Ted Kennedy bosom pal who worked his tail off last summer to keep the borders wide open and reward 12-20 million lawbreakers with amnesty.

But you may recall my earlier article suggesting that conservatives write to the McCain campaign and demand that he persuade the president and Senate to close the borders, deport illegal immigrants, release the jailed border guards and fire federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton, who wrongfully jailed these agents, before we will vote for John McCain.

For those who may have missed that, I had urged readers to contact the McCain Campaign with this message:

Sen. McCain, I am respectfully asking you to persuade your friends in the Senate and your friend the President to actually close the border by November, actually building a physical fence spanning all parts of the southern US border generally deemed to be vulnerable, turning back all illegal immigrants detained at the southern border and elsewhere in the United States, releasing border agents Compean and Ramos from prison and firing US Prosecutor Johnny Sutton for abuse of authority. If you succeed in persuading them, and if you do not move substantially further to the Left on any other issue, then I will understand that you are not only sincere in your campaign promises but are strong enough politically to lead America. Under these circumstances and only these, I pledge that I will vote for you in November. If you do not, I will vote for a third party candidate.

I would like to remind readers that McCain’s latest concession does not get him off the hook. He has a long way to go. My article had a lot of hits, mostly because WorldNetDaily graciously linked to it from their news site. Obviously, this action in which many of you participated, along with strong statements by Ann Coulter and, recently, talk show host Bill Cunningham, that they would vote for Hillary to help keep McCain out of the White House, were partly if not wholly responsible for McCain’s backtracking on his previous pro-amnesty and pro-open border stand on immigration. But note that McCain has a long way to go before he is compliant enough with your message to the McCain Campaign to earn your vote. He hasn’t even mentioned border agents Compean and Ramos. I for one will not vote for McCain if he does not make a really strong statement denouncing the jailing of these fine men and promising to release them immediately if he is elected. I absolutely could not vote in conscience for a man who would support by his inaction the betrayal of these loyal government servants. Did he, or anyone in the press, even notice that these border guards are Hispanics themselves? My wife and I watch the news on Univisión and the opinion among viewers there is almost unanimous, namely, that Compean and Ramos are victims of a wrongful sentence.  It is one thing to want open borders and amnesty, but another to want your fellow Hispanics punished for doing their jobs.

I strongly urge you to send McCain another message reminding him of the original promise we made as conservatives, as articulated above, and that he is not anywhere near the benchmark we expect of him to earn our vote.

In the interest of making of John McCain a more palatable candidate for conservatives, and thus helping him get elected, please consider sending the following text to the McCain Campaign in an email or regular mailing to

John McCain 2008 / P.O. Box 16118 / Arlington, VA 22215

or by phone:

703-418-2008

Sen. McCain, a while back, conservatives like myself contacted your campaign HQ in an effort to help you, concerned that your support was dangerously frail, and suggesting a remedy. We urged you to persuade your friends in the Senate and your friend the President to actually close the border by November, building a physical fence, turning back all illegal immigrants detained at the southern border and elsewhere, releasing border agents Compean and Ramos from prison and firing US Prosecutor Johnny Sutton for abuse of authority. In an effort to further your campaign, we promised if you succeed in persuading the Senate and President to do these things, and if you do not move substantially further to the Left, then we would understand that you are not only sincere in your campaign promises but are strong enough politically to lead America. Under these circumstances, we pledged to vote for you in November, putting all your past actions behind us. Recently, you stated, for the first time, that we need a barrier at the border. That suggests to us you are listening. This is the least of what is expected of you, since the Constitution says you would be the chief executive, in charge of enforcing laws. Please look carefully at the requirements for us to vote for you. There are a few more to go. We have set the bar high.  After all, you have set your sights on the highest office in our country. We decide whether you have likewise set high standards worthy of that office.

Thank you

The ball is still in McCain’s court.

Our chief executive refuses to do his job and uphold the Constitution. Americans aren’t about to help another such politician lay siege to our White House and our country.

 By Donald Hank

Three of America’s enemies are positioning themselves to enter the White House, where one will continue the siege initiated by George W. Bush.

Hillary hates us because we didn’t go to Harvard.

The Obama’s hate us for our color – red, white and blue.  Barrack H. (don’t ask what it stands for) wants to be our first red president.

John McCain doesn’t hate us.  He just doesn’t know — or care — that we exist.

We are like the Travelocity gnome about to go over the falls.

Conservatives have always thought the left was planning a bloodless takeover of the US.

Takeover yes, bloodless, hardly.

The left sprouted in the bloodstained soil of France, coming to maturity in Russia and later China and elsewhere. Whenever it took root, millions died.

How will Americans die?

We’re already dying.  We just don’t associate these casualties with the left, partly because we can’t agree on the definition of a person and partly because the Bush administration managed to pull off a leftwing coup without being identified as a leftist.

But what is globalism if not neo-communism?  Old-fashioned Communists robbed rich people and gave to poor people, making nations poor.

Postmodern Communists rob from rich countries and give to poor countries, making the world poor.

Where’s the violence, you say?

There are 2 forms of violence due to leftist activism. The most obvious is abortion, which has produced as many casualties as Hitler and Stalin. The other form is more subtle and requires some explanation.

First we need to realize that when leftist historians report on events like the French, Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions, they excuse the violence, saying the leaders were noble but participants got out of hand. Voila, no such thing as intentional leftist-generated violence. Just collateral damage.

Stefane Courtois and comrades, authors of The Black Book of Communism, the itemized tally sheet of the Left’s casualties (about 100 million by their count), are unrepentant leftists, who think leftist ideology can exist independently of violence. They envision a kinder gentler Marxist utopia in the future.

The mantra that killings in leftist regimes are not attributable to ideology works like a charm.  Psychologically, Americans need to believe everyone is good, even brutal dictators.  Thus, it wasn’t hard to convince us of this absurdity. 

Another reason why casualties of the Left are hidden is that the Left has been successful in convincing us that the tilt of government toward “globalism” is actually part of a conservative agenda, alleging that the Bush administration wants open borders because capitalism needs cheap labor.  But if that’s true, why is it Ted Kennedy and Republicans in name only - the Republican left - who most enthusiastically support Bush’s amnesty campaign? 

But the left (Democrats and RINOs) has also succeeded in convincing the public that the alien invasion causes no violence.

Just like “people who got out of hand” in foreign leftist revolutions, many illegal immigrants have “gotten out of hand,” committing violent crimes and killing people in auto accidents (over 9,000 deaths annually from both causes) or through diseases and drugs.

Though shrugged off by the media, these deaths far exceed the American casualties in Iraq that the media constantly rub under our noses. 

But you will argue that these deaths are incidental and the government certainly does not intend to hurt you. But if you buy into this notion that the takeover of government by open border activists has not deliberately caused injury, then why are dangerous illegal aliens released here after serving time?  Why is an INS prison the site of one of the busiest naturalization offices on the East coast?

And how is it that a border guard can be killed by an alien criminal whom no one can extradite while those border guards who defend us are jailed?

Why do politicians oppose deportation when there’s a resurgence of formerly conquered diseases like leprosy, malaria or TB - including the multi-drug-resistant variety - precisely in areas of heavy illegal alien concentration?

How is it that the bulk of murder warrants in Los Angeles are for illegals, and yet the Los Angeles police department isn’t allowed to ask if a detained suspect is here illegally?

Isn’t it obvious that the government actually wants violent aliens to harm us?

What difference is there between releasing an angry mob to kill people in France, Russia and China and unleashing armies of criminal aliens to kill Americans?

Clearly there is an ideology behind this, based on the premise that Americans have too much — not only too much wealth, but even too much safety!  There is more to this than a desire to help the downtrodden.  There is a clear-cut thirst for revenge against the haves.  I had written that Maoism is, de facto, a movement intended not to help but rather to punish.  And our homegrown Maoism has been doing just that for many years.

I can’t tell you how many thousands of dollars I have lost over the years when companies that were then my clients started sending me affirmative action forms asking my sex and race.  Every time I returned one of these, confessing to being a white American male, I lost the client in question.  Every single time. 

Affirmative action wasn’t devised to help anyone.  It was born to punish.  I am in fact fined thousands of dollars every year for being who I am since I was born, and absurdly, my daughter and Hispanic wife - supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action - pay a heavy price for having a father and husband who is - male!

Likewise, if you are a resident of this country, you are being punished for living here.

Even immigrants don’t escape.

A Hispanic friend of ours used to argue that we can’t just deport illegal aliens.  He was horrified when I said we can and should.  He and his wife recently moved to a suburban community near Washington, DC.  She called recently and complained of violent crime in their neighborhood due to Hispanic gangs.  Though mostly illegal immigrants, when they’re jailed, the gang members are eventually released back into their neighborhood.  These friends have four children, including their anchor baby, and they fear for their safety.

They finally get it.

When will we?

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com

By Donald Hank

The next column, by Olavo de Carvalho, scheduled to appear within a day or two, will need some introduction. First, for those of you who follow the US media, I need to point out that Lula is the president of Brazil. The only thing said about him recently was from a few months ago when President Bush visited Brazil and made nice with Lula, promising him the US would buy a few billions of dollars worth of his ethanol. No, you the fuel buyer did not agree to this. Your nice president agreed for you. You will buy.

What the press didn’t tell you at that time or any time, and what Bush could care less about, is that President Lula, a communist sympathizer, is one of the biggest shysters on the South American continent and has aided and abetted not only Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, mightily helping to get him elected, but also the narcoterrorists and kidnappers of the FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Army) and other criminal organizations on the continent.

Lula did this in part through the Forum of Sao Paolo, which he himself originally denied ever existed, even though he was one of the most influential organizers. Recently, however, as Olavo de Carvalho points out, Lula now not only admits it exists but that he was there and made great efforts to undermine democracy precisely by means of this instrument. Although I trust Mr. Carvalho’s painstaking research, I needed to see this with my own eyes, so I went and checked the official web site publishing Lula’s speech, which admits this. Sure enough. It is all there just as quoted in Mr. de Carvalho’s article (see below).

Now nota bene: President Bush and his fellow neocons also denied the existence of meetings held in Canada to promote the North American Union. He knows we know he was there, because the meetings were reported in the world press. But he denies - or denied (but later admitted) - that there are plans to embark on a North American Union.

Like fellow globalist Lula, Bush will almost certainly some day boast of his success in pulling the wool over the eyes of constituents and subjecting the US to a continental government that will spell the demise of US sovereignty. Globalists are true believers in their cause. Those among them who call themselves Christian point to numerous statements by “Christian” leaders denouncing “nationalism,” based on tenuous interpretations of scripture, failing to point out that by nationalism, what they actually mean is sovereignty, a vital component in the existence of all nations! Thus these pious leaders tell us, or at least imply, that closed borders are un-Christian and the entire Third World has a claim to a piece of our territory and our national product - your income. Thus, for all of their piety, these clerics are traitors.

The globalist pattern described by Mr. de Carvalho below, namely, lying and then admitting one lied, is bound to repeat itself here.

As I have said before, globalism is the new communism.

It may surprise some readers to read that, as mentioned above, President Lula, after carefully concealing the very existence of the leftist Forum of Sao Paolo, would suddenly come out and vaunt his role in it as well as the duplicity of the Forum organizers, thus:

“In this way we could act, together with other countries, with our comrades of the social movement, of those countries’ parties, of the union movement, always using the relationship built in the Sao Paulo Forum so that we could talk without appearing to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place.”

What struck me is that the initial cover-up displays the same pattern as that of the NAFTA Superhighway, a similar globalist venture, which was at first denied by all those complicit in its planning, but then showed up on a web site maintained by the Canadian government.

Ron Paul quotes the SPP web site as admitting:

“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda.”

But most stunning of all is Bush’s admission, despite constant subsequent denial, at Baylor University, that a union along EU lines is in fact in the works.

Why do leftwing activists, whether the old-fashioned communist, or the post-modern globalist variety, first lie and then admit, nonchalantly, or even boastfully, that they lied?

No explanation is possible for such seemingly irrational behavior, unless, that is, one admits the monstrous hypothesis that the global elite is the new communist elite. In this case, the following excerpt, the concluding chapter of the Communist Manifesto, explains this odd behavior:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”