Laigle’s Forum

Obama’s Libya:

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

Laigle’s Forum recently ran an article by our friend Julio Severo showing how Julio and a handful of allies who trusted in God, almost single-handedly brought down the pro-gay political juggernaut in Brazil, which bullies and threatens anyone who dares to oppose “gay” marriage and the official view that homosexuality is a harmless and healthy lifestyle worthy of protection. For now, Julio is in hiding, thanks to these threats. But a blogger and his faith can move mountains, as we see below. As always, we urge you to visit Julio’s web site via one of the links below and give your most generous gift. Julio has sacrificed everything to do what he does and has no other source of income but your donations.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has suspended the distribution and production of gay sex education films for schools in Brazil.

By Julio Severo

Education packs containing gay and lesbian video scenes, supposedly aim to combat homophobia, will not be used in Brazilian schools.

Government spokesman Gilberto Carvalho said President Rousseff viewed the material personally and found the footage unsuitable for youngsters.

“She didn’t like what she saw,” Carvalho said. So she decided to suspend its distribution.

However, her reaction came after evangelical and Catholic parliamentarians and their allies in the Brazilian Congress threatened to block any upcoming legislation unless President Rousseff halted the films. They also threatened to support investigative commissions on the minister of Education, his Ministry and another powerful minister, who has been exposed for corruption.

Carvalho said President Rousseff was not, however, discontinuing anti-“homophobia” programs in the public schools.

The “gay kits”, as they are known in Brazil, were produced for the Brazilian Ministry of Education by ABGLT, the largest homosexualist group in Brazil, which received more than one million dollars in government grants to make them. ECOS, another (US-funded) Brazilian NGO that helped make them, also received more than one million dollars. The exposing of this multi-million dollar partnership in a recent Brazilian television news program produced a scandal that rocked the government plan to distribute “gay kit” to all the Brazilian schools.

Matthew Hoffman, in a LifeSiteNews report, said the kits, aimed at “children between the ages of 7 and 12 years, were designed to encourage acceptance of homosexuality. The kits reportedly include a DVD with a story about a fourteen-year-old who goes to the bathroom, and becomes sexually aroused while watching another student urinate in the stall next to him”.

Several members of the Brazilian Congress said the sex education packs encourage homosexual behavior. Even Reinaldo Azevedo, a prominent Catholic social columnist favoring gay “marriage” and child adoption by gays, said that “the gay kit aims to promote sexual harassment against heterosexual children”.

In response, ABGLT has launched a fierce campaign to defend its kits, calling its oppnents “homophobic”.

With information from BBC and LifeSiteNews.

Source: Julio Severo in English:

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

More information on ABGLT, the NGO that made the gay kit:

ABGLT Files “Hate” Charges Against Julio Severo and Other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT is denounced in the US media for persecution against Julio Severo and other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT Launches Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition

ABGLT ask reforms in the children’s “rights” in Brazil

ABGLT is favored by former Brazilian President Lula

With the assistance of Hillary Clinton, UN Approves ABGLT, Drops Christian Charity

From Julio:

Wow! Some US websites are covering what has happened in Brazil about the kit gay:

• Brazilian President Rousseff Pulls Distribution of Anti-Homophobia Kits to Schools (towleroad.com)
• Brazilian President Pulls Anti-Homophobia Kits From Schools (lezgetreal.com)
• Brazil President bans “Anti-Homophobia Kits” (queerlandia.com)
• Brazilian leader suspends anti-homophobia campaign (sfgate.com)
• Brazilian President Pulls Anti-Homophobia Kits From Schools (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Brazil’s president suspends school anti-homophobia campaign (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Brazil sex education material suspended by President (therainbowpost.com)
• Brazilian leader suspends anti-homophobia campaign (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

EU now eyes both North Africa and Latin America as possible new territories for their empire.

by Don Hank

The German language part of online journal German Foreign Policy reported today that Brazil is interested in sending troops to support EU ”military interventions” in Europe.

It also said that Germany and Brazil, as “hegemonial powers” in their respective continents, are interested in forming an alliance.

This has numerous implications:

For one thing, EU foreign secretary William Hague said last week he is interested in ”deepening and broadening” ties to North Africa. Such statements regularly precede inclusion of new states in the EU. 

Further, it looks like Germany is “temporarily” shutting down its nuclear power facilities in view of the Fukushima disaster. If Germany retreats from nuclear power, that would undoubtedly make it impossible for her to maintain her status as the number 2 (after China) exporter. She would be obliged to relocate her manufacturing overseas, and cheap-labor Brazil would be a prime destination. This would be catastrophic for the job market in Germany.

But the EU has tended to weaken rich nations at the expense of poorer ones — rather than provide labor markets for its own people, as it did, for example, by closing the Corus Redcar steel plant in the UK and selling it to Tata Steel of India, making 1,700 UK workers jobless. The scheme flew under the flag of “less carbon emissions.” Now India gets the carbon and the jobs, and the UK gets to breathe air containing Indian carbon instead of EU carbon.

The German site says (my translation):  

“Federal President Christian Wulff [Tr. note: not as high a rank as that of Chancellor Angela Merkel] announced a strengthening of the strategic partnership of Germany with Brazil. As Wulff stated during his visit to the South American country, which he visited last week, Berlin wants to further develop its relations with Brasilia. Germany and Brazil have been struggling jointly for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.”

and later:

“According to German plans, Brazil would provide troops for EU military interventions in the future. Experts warn that the Brazilian military has not abandoned its intention to build atomic bombs.”

The article said Brazil is interested in gaining greater independence from the US.

There are a lot of implications here, but William Hague said last week he wants to “broaden and deepen” relations with N. Africa in hopes of expanding the EU empire to that continent. Germany, as an EU leader, particularly in foreign affairs, now seems interested in including Brazil in the EU as well, to include 3 continents. The EU already has free trade agreements with various Latin American countries, including Panama, where I reside.

Brazil is a hard-left nation whose president Dilma Rousseff was once linked to a terror plot (as was Bill Ayers in the US) that killed at least one American. She was acquitted for political reasons. Various known terrorists operate freely there.

Don Hank

US bans offshore drilling in US, supports it in Brazil:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

Full German language text cited above:

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/42508

An older article from the site, in English:

Cooperative Leading Powers

14.04.2004

BERLIN/BRASILIA/RESENDE

Berlin is considering closer cooperation with the Brazilian military and armaments elites. The Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP – German Institute for International and Security Affairs) refers to ,,Brazil’s rise from a discrete regional to a cooperative leading power”. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, closely associated with the SPD, debates over the South American State as ,,a player and troublemaker in international politics”. In the meantime, Brasilia advances a nuclear program, developed with German assistance, and arouses suspicions of intentions to produce nuclear arms.

Brazil is not only a ,,South American regional power”, it also develops more and more into a ,,spokesman for the fast developing nations,”according to Berlin’s SWP. ,,Under President Lula, Brazil once again, became aware of its size and its enormous economic potential,”according to the foreign policy think tank, which refers to the leadership role taken on by Brasilia at the WTO Conference of Ministers at Cancun last Fall. At that time, Brazil, together with India and China, led a group of over 20 states which resisted the agrarian policies of the United States of America and, particularly, of the European Union. ¹⁾

Common Defense Policy?

Evidently Berlin looks to utilize Brasilia’s more offensive foreign policy for its own ambitions for world power. According to the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which is considering increased military cooperation of the two nations, ,,Germany and Brazil have the largest populations and are economically the strongest countries in their regions.” ,,A common agenda regarding crisis prevention and international defense”is the subject of a ,,public debate”between Gernot Erler, SPD’s foreign policy representative, and Luiz Dulci, secretary general of the Brazilian presidential office, which will be conducted by the foundation in Berlin in May.

Nuclear Program…

In the meantime, Brasilia advances a uranium enrichment program and arouses suspicions of planning to produce nuclear arms. Announcements to that effect had been made, last year by the recently dismissed minister of technology, Roberto Amaral. Critics warn that the country’s armed forces, supposedly, are developing a nuclear program on their own, which is not under control of the Brazilian parliament. During the military dictatorships (1964-85), the Brazilian military had attempted to come into the possession of nuclear arms.

… with German technology

At that time and with German assistance, the military successfully created the essential prerequisites for atom bombs. In 1975, the social-liberal Bonn government concluded the German-Brazilian nuclear treaty with Brasilia which, in fierce competition with US corporations which normally consider Brazil as part of their immediate sphere of influence, gave the contract to the German Siemens-KWU to build the nuclear power plant Angra II. Shortly afterwards, and with German assistance, Brazil succeeded in enriching uranium. Fernando Gabeira, member of the Brazilian parliament, ,,does not preclude”that German technology is also utilized during the current attempts to enrich uranium in Resende, near Rio de Janeiro. ²⁾

1) See also earlier article ,,Augean Stables”
2) Klaus Hart: Antioekologische Tauschangebote. Lula-Regierung will Siemens-AKW Angra III fertig stellen; ila. Zeitschrift der Informationsstelle Lateinamerika, Februar 2004

See also earlier article Berlin: EU must assert itself against the USA in Latin America

Sources:

Die Aussenpolitik der Regierung Lula. Brasiliens Aufstieg von einer diskreten Regional- zu einer kooperativen Fuehrungsmacht; SWP-Studie Maerz 2004

Brasilien und die friedliche Urananreicherung; www.heise.de/tp

Original text portions quoted in my commentary above:

Bundespräsident Christian Wulff kündigt eine Stärkung der strategischen Partnerschaft
Deutschlands mit Brasilien an. Wie Wulff bei seinem Aufenthalt in dem
südamerikanischen Land erklärte, das er letzte Woche besuchte, will
Berlin seine Beziehungen zu Brasilia weiter ausbauen. Deutschland und
Brasilien kämpfen bereits seit Jahren gemeinsam um einen ständigen
Sitz im UNO-Sicherheitsrat

Nach deutschen
Plänen soll Brasilien zukünftig Truppen für EU-Militärinterventionen
stellen. Fachleute warnen, das brasilianische Militär habe seine
Absicht, Atombomben zu bauen, bis heute nicht aufgegeben.

Man who slaughtered school kids in Rio was nicknamed “Bin Laden,” wanted to fly an airplane into Rio’s Christ the Redeemer

By Julio Severo, with the collaboration of Don Hank

What killed 12 children in a school in Rio? Was it a weapon? Was it violence? Was it prejudice? Conservative Christians? The media are blaming all of these.

According to the Brazilian newspaper Zero Hora, the author of the slaughter, Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, had a predilection for Islam and was fascinated by the Islamic terrorist attack against the US on September 11, 2001.

His dream? To fly an airplane into Christ the Redeemer, a massive statue symbolic of the strong Christian traditions in Brazil.

What was his main motivation to slaughter so many school girls? Was he a homosexual and woman-hater? Although he was in the past a Jehovah’s witness, a heretical sect with doctrines generally rejected by Catholics and Evangelicals, and was obviously confused about biblical truths, Islam is clearly the predominant religious inspiration for his violence and dreams of airborne destruction.

Jehovah’s witness, regardless of their heretical views, have no history of using airplanes for terrorist attacks against buildings or murdering school children. None of the terrorists that attacked the US ten years ago belonged to that religion. But all of them were Muslim.

The mass murderer’s own cousin said: “he considered himself a fundamentalist Muslim and was training himself to pilot airplanes, using a computer game.”

Zero Hora also confirms: “Because he affected a long beard, some neighbors called him Bin Laden.”

Almost none of the mainstream media in English or other languages even mention the murderer’s Islamic sympathy. Imagine if he had expressed admiration for Hitler! Do you think they might have mentioned that?

Read more

by Don Hank

Having a blog often provides information and views from readers that can lead to new hypotheses through inductive reasoning.

You may remember the Muslim who contacted me the other day and, alluding to the much publicized Koran burning at a Florida church, practically demanded that I support the creation of a US law prohibiting offending the Prophet Mohammed. I went toe to toe with Mahmoud and eventually backed him down, but the entire exchange led me to predict that at some point there would be a major push in our government to prohibit speech “offensive to Muslims.” Here was my evidence:

1—I knew that Europe had already made and was enforcing such dhimmi laws and a lot of ordinary people were being hurt by them. Some were being jailed, others were paying draconian fines and in at least one case, a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast in Britain almost lost their business thanks to the intervention of the thought police in a very personal matter involving politically incorrect witnessing for Jesus.

2—I sensed that Mahmoud was not acting alone. He was a fairly well educated Muslim, and was no doubt a leader in spearheading pro-Muslim change in the world. He didn’t just debate me on line for the sport of it. His responses were too detailed and elaborate for that.

There was definitely something – and someone, most likely a large group or groups – behind the idea, even if they didn’t necessarily put him up to writing me. Sure enough, the ink was scarcely dry on my article when the internet started buzzing with the news that GOP Senator Lindsay Graham and his Democrat colleagues were considering proposing a new bill that would ban offenses to the Prophet.

Another example of a trend in American opinion that I suspect is in the offing but that I had not heard of before is reflected in an email I received today. I expect it too to go ballistic, not on the grassroots level but thanks to the services of church leaders and other influential members of the Ruling Class.

The email friend in question hypothesized that GW Bush knew a supranational world government was inevitable and knew he could not head it off altogether, so he decided to join the Security and Prosperity Partnership and other supranational schemes so that we could have a choice spot at the table. This friend referred me to the writings of a Malachi Martin, who had written a book showing that the Catholic church is interested in joining the push for a one-world government, for at least 2 reasons:

1—A One-World Government is inevitable anyway, and

2—If the church gets its foot in the door early Christians (read Catholics) can get a choice seat at the negotiating table and look out for their interests.

Aside from the fact that this leaves out all Christians mindful of the biblical ban on being unequally yoked, this is eerily reminiscent of the early arguments in favor of granting communist China most-favored nation status. The buzz was that China would inevitably become a world economic power and we needed to get in on the deal early to profit from this “vast new market” that would soon open up. Implicit in this propaganda point was that here was a seller’s market for the US and we would sell high technology to the Chinese while buying some of their goods and maintaining a healthy balance of trade.

We all know how that turned out, now that China owns a hefty share of US debt and a military arsenal nearly equivalent to ours, and has become a vast new sucking sound in the US economy and trade balance.

But back to my friend’s email. If what he said was true – that is, if Bush believed that the One-World Government was inevitable but in his heart rejected the idea — why didn’t he go before the American people and tell them why he was for this idea that would cost them sovereignty but would also pay big dividends in the end? If he really thought it was a great idea because it would give America a choice spot at the bargaining table, and further, that the scheme would inevitably materialize no matter what anyone did, then why didn’t he convince us of that instead of stealthily planning a meeting in Canada behind closed doors and with some of the tightest security ever?

Or better yet, since he supposedly was not in favor of the scheme, when approached by his homologues in Canada and Mexico, respectively, he could have easily said in the media, eg, on TV or in the press:

“My fellow Americans,

The presidents of Canada and Mexico have invited me to sit down and discuss a plan for rapprochement with their governments in a way that would transfer some of our sovereignty to them — and vice-versa — and give them the opportunity to help in making decisions that traditionally have been made by your national government. It would be modeled along the lines of the EU.”

Since this is a matter of national importance and involves forfeiting some US power and influence, I wanted to bring it before the American people and let you vote on it in a referendum. Please let me know whether you are willing to let Mexico and Canada participate in our national government for the common good of all three of our nations.

Before you tell us your opinion on this, I want a vigorous debate in the media, for example, on radio and TV, so that no one has the idea we are trying to do this behind your backs.

Thank you and God bless America.”

Bush then could have arranged for a referendum or persuaded one of the polling companies to take a poll of Americans and see if they are willing to give up some of their sovereignty in the interest of “security and prosperity” on the strength of only a vague promise, without much explanation of the mechanism by which such a scheme could make any of us more secure and prosperous (particularly since illegal aliens from Mexico – those not occupying our federal prisons or terrorizing the ghettos — were even then taking our jobs and sending vast amounts of cash to Mexico).  As I pointed out above, the US government had made a similar assessment of a sovereignty-endangering free trade arrangement with China saying it would “open up a vast new market for US goods and services.” The public already knew how that had panned out and could have acted accordingly. I believe Bush knew the answer would have been a resounding “no.” Since, as my friend postulated, Bush did not really favor the scheme but considered it inevitable, he could have thus gotten off the hook by throwing the decision to the public and saved American sovereignty for a few more years. That would have satisfied the presidents of Canada and Mexico, who would have seen that his hands were tied.

But no, he didn’t do that, did he? He went along with the stealth approach that they all desired, because all three knew the public would never have given up their sovereignty if allowed to opt out of the ill-conceived scheme.

But Bush not only didn’t give the US public the opportunity to opt out of this momentous plan to change the US government forever and hand off significant amounts of decision making power to other countries. In fact, the truth is, Bush had already sold off swaths of our — your — sovereignty to Mexican President Fox, who demanded more rewards for the undocumented who stay indefinitely in our country after entering illegally.

Why didn’t Bush see fit to involve you in these decisions on amnesty and supranational government, touching on the most sensitive and important issues confronting the US public?

That would be a tough question if you assumed that Bush was not deliberately allowing your country’s sovereignty to be eroded, forcing you to pay for benefits lavished on invaders, and plotting to establish a new international union so as to do an even more profound end run around your will.

But if you accept the hypothesis that he was pulling the wool over your eyes for years because he was a true believer in the New World Order that his father had touted, then it all becomes crystal clear. This is the explanation that, in my estimation, best fits in with probability theory, if you subscribe to such quaint notions.

It would explain his fawning before a country that sends millions in contraband drugs and humans to the US every year and contributes more than 50% to our federal prison populations, and why the US has actually built an immigration facility on the grounds of a federal prison housing illegal aliens.

But this is not about Bush. It is about the idea of caving in to potentially harmful ideas alien to the American heart under absurd pretexts.

Even so, I am sorry if I have spoiled the day for anyone who once thought GW Bush was a real patriot who sold out America only because he knew if he didn’t some other great patriot would beat him to it.

Not much of an excuse, is it?