Laigle’s Forum

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?

The most important question you can ask yourself is:  Will I be emotionally manipulated by the Global Elite’s appeal to false patriotism or will I say “no” this time?

by Don Hank

It’s funny how all of the people who posted comments to my recent articles (here and here) agreed with me that getting further embroiled in another conflict in the Middle East to support a group we know nothing about (except that some belong to Al Qaeda and many are implants of radical Islamic groups from other countries) is not a good idea, no matter how you feel about the demonstrably unsavory Colonel Qadaffi. Some of you disagreed on minor points, but all posters so far have agreed with my main premise.

Yet, I have received a few private emails from people who seem to think it is unpatriotic to oppose the Globalist Elite when they try to drag us into a war – as if war itself were a sacred goal or a permanent pillar of our Republic and not being at war with someone is simply unacceptable and/or a sign of weakness. Oddly, the ones opposed refuse to share their views with the group. Are they ashamed of them? Should they be?

For example, I just received the following email today from a member of an email group that has adopted me as a member (I hadn’t asked to be part of it and the e-mailer was not on my list that I know of):

DONALD   YOUR SLAMING [sic] OF AMERICA , OUR VETERANS AND DEAD HERO’S [sic] HERE IS INTOLERABLE

                 PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR E-MAIL LIST AND DO NOT FORWARD TO ME,

                                                                                             A VIETNAM VETERAN

[name withheld]

This kind of blind obedience to the Ruling Class using war for political gain is exactly what the Global Elitists and Obama were counting on.  In past instances of this kind, their manipulative tactic of confronting the public with a supposedly inevitable and noble military adventure (“never let a crisis go to waste”) has always served them well and there has always been an endless supply of propaganda fodder in the form of “patriots” who think that helping unsavory US politicians and their unsavory foreign allies win an unsavory war is noble and patriotic.

Need I point out that these brave souls who claim to have risked their lives and limbs in past wars (not saying they didn’t, mind you) often seem to lack the courage to stand up for what they believe? They have no fear of bullets but words scare them silly so they plead for mercy after attacking: “please don’t respond.”

Sort of like :

“I challenge you to a duel, but please please don’t accept…. Or else! Thank you and have a nice day”

And of course, most of them fail to post similar comments at Laigle’s Forum where others could read them and be influenced by their views. Wonder why they pass up the opportunity. No, actually I don’t.

There are excellent reasons for this refusal on the part of otherwise brave men to debate like a man.

As you can see, there is no rational argument in the above email that in any way counters anything I said in my columns. Nor does the orthographically challenged author show how I “slammed America” by refusing to obediently acquiesce to Obama’s call for participation in a civil war that does not concern us, on the heels of two other wars in other Middle East countries that we have not won. The email is clearly:

–an attempt to shame me for daring to oppose a war effort launched by a US “president” (who over 50% say they aren’t convinced was qualified for the office)

–a hit-and-run attack (I am not supposed to write back to this brave but intellectually unarmed military man)

–an attempt to silence me.

Further, he doesn’t simply say my “slamming” of America is intolerable to him. He suggests that what is intolerable to him is universally intolerable. End of discussion. A vet has spoken and you will listen and shut up (oops! Unfortunately, I do not seem to take orders very well).

Interestingly, all of these characteristics of the email are precisely those used for over a century by the far left and the Global Elite. This is not a coincidence, although the e-mailer is almost certainly oblivious to the Globalist scheme behind his reflexive actions. If indeed this individual is acting out of patriotic motives, he is doing so not for the benefit of America but – no doubt unwittingly – as part of a plot by the far left to get Obama re-elected. He has been set up by the Left, who are laughing their evil heads off over his childish naiveté.

The move on the part of Obama to embroil the US in another fiasco sure to bring us embarrassment (and who received the Nobel Prize in anticipation that he would not get his country involved in any more such fiascos!) is a brilliant strategic move designed to pave the way for Obama’s re-election.

The Left therefore has much more to lose than the Right by my resistance to the Coalition’s attack on a country with which we are not at war and on a man who so far had been friendly and cooperative with Western behests.

The far-left schemers behind this scheme in their comfortable recliners know that there are numerous Americans who react reflexively and unhesitatingly to any “call to arms,” no matter how vile or stealthy and how transparent the motivation.

These are that noble group of helpful lackeys Lenin called useful idiots. They are not unlike Dalmatians that instinctively chase fire trucks, not because they have any interest in saving lives or putting out fires, but because such behavior is bred into them. They simply cannot help themselves.  And therein lies a tragedy.

But unlike Dalmatians, they pour fuel on a conflagration that for decades has been completely out of control. It is all part of an elaborate scheme that has led us into war after war that we do not win and that results in improved strategic positions for our enemies, while weakening and endangering our allies (particularly Israel in this case) and the US – and that has led to China becoming a super power both militarily and economically, even as our sun sets on the western horizon.

Obama spends money we will never be able to repay, takes us infinitely far to the Left, salivates over every opportunity to deprive Americans of freedoms such as gun rights, religious expression, and even sovereignty for their own nation, and knows he can always count on the dutiful assistance of these stalwart self-proclaimed  patriots who seem oblivious to the hatred Obama and the Global Elitists show toward patriotism itself.

Americans as a people are normally too smart to fall for this demagoguery.

In fact, if it weren’t for the “patriotic” Dalmatians chasing his fire truck, Obama probably wouldn’t stand a chance in 2012. But  he thinks he can always count on these noble misguided souls in a pinch.

And that pinch is the upcoming presidential election. Can Obama count on your support? Or have you seen the light and had enough?

There is hardly anything more important than your answer to this question (either publicly expressed or formulated in your heart and mind): will you be manipulated or will you say no this time?

I respectfully invite your comments – both pro and con – here at Laigle’s Forum, where my articles are now averaging about 400 hits each. Remember: a comment against my premise that is sent to me personally and not shared with the group will count as a hit-and-run, which is, of course, cowardly and unfair no matter how many wars the respondent has been in. If you have never posted here, please note that while this WordPress blog is designed to allow publication only by my consent, I will allow all reasonably respectful responses once I receive notification by email. (However, I am not always here at my computer. You see, this is not my full time job, just my passion. Thanks!).

I am not a hit-and-run type guy and actually enjoy low-key online conflict which is shared with the public because it can help resolve simmering issues in people’s minds. All the rest is just gaseous emissions.

Personally, I would be ashamed of myself if I said nasty things to you behind everyone’s back and I expect you wouldn’t like that either.

So let’s talk and let’s keep it public so everyone can participate.

Thanks!

Biden says Obama can be impeached:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

On my blog at sntjohnny.com, I issued a series of posts trying to establish some sense of proportion and perspective about the Tiller murder, the question has been raised as to why the emphasis.

I had my reasons.

Here are links to those entries:

Tiller’s Death and the Internet and Right Wing Extremists

gun control needed to stem abortionist killings in churches

BREAKING NEWS: Today 150,000,000 pro-lifers woke up and DID NOT kill an abortionist.

And this present essay that you are reading was posted already at:

Why Proportion and Perspective is Needed Regarding the Tiller Murder

The reasons for this emphasis go beyond the recent murder of Tiller, however.  We can go back to a post that I made not too long ago that suggested that a ‘right-wing extremist’ attack was not merely inevitable, but something that the current administration actually wants to happen.

Here is a little quote:

Here is what I think. I think that the recently admitted NSA over-collection of American domestic communications revealed that people- even decent people- are really, really, really, really, really, POed about the way things are and the way they are going. I think that material helped drive the DHS report, but I think the DHS was just looking for an excuse.

This report is likely to produce the very thing it is warning about. With this report, every conservative American became subject to the Thought Police and a target of scrutiny by the Federal government. I believe it will put some people over the edge. I believe the intent was to put them over the edge. Read the rest of this entry »

This land is THEIR land

By Don Hank

The New York Post reported today that a large encampment of jobless immigrants has been discovered near Southampton, a development featuring $1 million dollar homes.

The thrust of the story was the media’s usual focus: the rich-poor dichotomy that fuels the hatred of the rich in America but obfuscates the salient issue, a problem caused by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and that is, the elite’s abandonment of sovereignty for the US. Even “conservatives” ignore this theme as though we had “gotten beyond” it, as if abandoning our national identity and cohesion could constitute “getting beyond” anything and not getting into a growing and gargantuan tragedy.

The article about the encampment of immigrants (the word “illegal” is purged out) ends with a quote from the local police chief, who is obviously steeped in the lore of globalism:

“There really isn’t much we can do,” he said. “Our hands are tied on this.”

It has not dawned on either this police chief or the NY post writer that the reason the authorities’ hands are tied is that the “authorities,” the education system, the universities and the media have succeeded in erasing practically all memory of national sovereignty from the consciousness of the government and the American public in their race to hustle us into an EU-like dictatorship that now grips all of Europe and has impoverished the “rich” countries like Britain and Germany and stripped Europeans of fundamental rights, such as freedom of conscience, the right to protest, and the right to determine their own destiny.

Neither the police chief nor the writer dares to mention this or the fact that our only hope of restoration not only for Southampton or New York, but for the late great United States of America is to restore the awareness that we not only are still a nation of laws and borders (i.e., sovereignty) but we must be for our survival.

A border is like the skin on a living organism. Without skin there can be no meaningful protection from the encroachment of germs, viruses, temperature effects, drying, etc. Imagine a doctor prescribing the removal of all your skin in an attempt to help out with your relations with other people. The theory, in analogy with the globalists’ theory, would be that skin makes people selfish, reminds us that we are different and distinct from others and creates an unnecessary boundary that separates us from them. It sounds outlandish to us in a medical context, but yet, our education system, our media and government have endorsed just such a skinless system for our nation. Just as physicians routinely prescribed and performed bloodletting for more than 2 millennia, our government, with the backing of media, is prescribing, and even enforcing, the removal of the protective membrane – borders – around our country with alarmingly little opposition from conservatives or liberals, all of whom have an immense stake in national security and sovereignty. And just as the common man watched for millennia as physicians killed patient after patient with bloodletting, asking “what can be done?”, we stand by and ask the same question, without seeing the obvious answer in front of our face, namely, stop flaying our nation alive.

The results could not be clearer: Phoenix now has the second-highest kidnapping rate of any city in the world, after Mexico City. Kidnapping as a feature of life obviously came there from Mexico. Further, according to a widely quoted estimate by Strategy Forecasting, Inc., “at least half of the $65 billion worth of illegal narcotics purchased in the U.S. each year come through Mexico.” It is also estimated that 25 Americans are killed every day by illegal aliens, either by automobile or by weapons in the hands of criminals. Obama’s response? Apologize to the Mexicans for the drug use in the US.

The federal response here in York County, PA, has been to build a facility to provide assistance to citizenship applicants at the York County Prison, where immigrant criminals are housed. Yes, your government can’t wait to get these potential voters, with their paternalistic view of government, on their roles.

As the Southampton police chief said, his hands are tied.

But yours most certainly are not.

No matter what your pet issue happens to be, whether abortion, parents’ rights, homeschooling, crime, religious freedom, marriage, or whatever, your agenda is not going anywhere in a country whose laws could soon be subject to the UN or a North American Union, because once we are part of a one-world government, our laws will no longer be in our hands. Ask any European for details on that.

The first thing you need to do is refuse to vote for any candidate for any office who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (or the Trilateral Commission or other globalist group) or who refuses to acknowledge our right to have protected boundaries or strong immigration law enforcement. If your pastor preaches against nationalism, calling it dangerous and un-Christian, that is code for: I am a globalist and I do not believe in sovereignty.

Why is he your pastor?

Stop supporting that church. Worship at home if necessary. Where two or three are gathered together…

America’s foundation is riddled with globalist termites. The Bushes were such termites. McCain is such a termite. So were all the other candidates in the last election with the exception of Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Obama and the Democrats all are termites.

But weak though it is, this is our country, and we must stand up and defend it. Let us make anti-nationalism as unpopular as racism or communism.

Racism is an excuse for slavery on an individual scale. Communism is an excuse for slavery on a national scale.

Globalism is an excuse for slavery on a world scale and once it happens, the good old USA won’t be there to stop it because we will be part of it.

Extrapolate the details in the following article by David Noakes to the bank crisis in the US and you get a plausible explanation for a disaster whose causes so far have not been explained or even investigated.

The author blames deregulation, although that was a secondary cause in the US. In the American media, deregulation is often blamed as well but without even a hint at the supposed mechanisms by which a “lack of regulation” might have operated to bring down the banks, and particularly how this would have happened simultaneously all over the globe. Indeed keen observers outside the elitist system have pointed out plausible causes and plausible mechanisms for our banks’ failures, such as the CRA and Fanny-Freddy and the complete lack of documentation and lack of down payments required by those semi-government Democrat-managed entities for mortgage lending. Laigle’s Forum is one of the few sites that has even attempted to tackle this issue in some depth. We find that rather than just simple deregulation or lack of regulation, it was in fact over-regulation that wrought the havoc. Specifically, Clinton had strengthened the CRA, requiring banks to make $1 trillion in loans to “underserved communities.” The only way to accomplish this was to force them into requiring no documentation of income and no down payment, absolutely suicidal policies. Bush, put up a meek fight, then went right along, urging a Zero Downpayment Initiative at his HUD web site in 2005.

But I have published the following article to show the striking similarity between the behavior of bankers on both our continents.

Knowing the extent of corruption among money managers, the below-described situation in the UK does not seem so far fetched a scenario for this country either.

Is there a clue in here for us? Note that managers of failed institutions here also got bonuses and exorbitant salaries, and none left in shame. No shame was shown on either side of the Atlantic and no one has apologized for bringing down Western finance and threatening the financial security of every citizen of dozens of countries. No accountability was demanded by government. And indeed, a dissident British banker was murdered for protesting the bad policies in place there (see below).

Compare this with the strong arm tactics used in the US when some banks wanted to refuse the bailout money. Wasn’t it really hush money?

Is it really plausible that the bizarre behavior witnessed in US banks would have mirrored the behavior of bankers on the other side of the Atlantic just by accident? How about the bailouts? They happened in concert all over Europe as well, over the protests of the citizenry, especially in Britain. Here, 90% of all calls to the US Congress urged lawmakers to vote against the bailout.

One thing is certain: International elitists in government and finance do not operate independently of each other, they are basically all in agreement, they use their willing media lackeys to overcome the public’s mistrust, and public mistrust of them is at an all-time high everywhere. There is no debate over the “wisdom” of the bailouts, no hint that the payments would be accompanied by any change in policy or regulations. And this despite the whispered accusation that bank failures were due to under-regulation – an accusation that catapulted ultra-elite, ultra-Left, ultra-incompetent Obama to power. Why wouldn’t bailout payments under Obama be predicated then on the passage of new regulations and strict compliance therewith?

Clearly, the public is being led around by their noses by an international group of cynical idealists and elitists who think we are all stupid.

It is a miracle that we have not yet seen massive protests.

But then, our bellies are still full.

Just wait…

Donald Hank

Did directors deliberately destroy their own banks?

By David Noakes

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) went from assets of plus £88 billion in 1999 to estimated liabilities of minus £1.3 trillion in 2009 – equal to a year’s income (GDP) for the whole of Great Britain. If Directors with mental disabilities had been appointed, they might have reduced the bank’s value by half. But to utterly destroy it on so stupendous a scale took real knowledge and determination.

It seems clear the wholesale mismanagement and corruption of banks by their directors was not unbelievable incompetence, but criminal. The government huffs and puffs at bonuses and pensions paid as a reward for failure, but then in every case it lets those corrupt payments, totaling billions of pounds, stand without passing legislation to confiscate.

It looks as though these huge bonuses and pensions were intentionally paid to compensate directors precisely for destroying their own banks, and for a job well done.

HSBC quietly possesses an ethical, Christian board. They are well managed, profitable, and took no part in creating this crisis. Standard Chartered Bank’s profits actually went up, even in 2008/9.

But take the case of Abbey National. In July 2004 their risk management officer, Richard Chang, was objecting that the run down of the bank by directors was deliberate (it resulted in the Bank’s ownership being transferred to a European Bank, Santander.)  The HBOS whistleblower alleged the same.

Anonymous documents then arrived at the board with similar suggestions, with additional evidence of sexual impropriety among Directors. Richard denied he had sent them, but was called in for a two and a half hour interrogation by the directors at the hands of Kroll corporate security, during which he was bullied and threatened, and at the end he was found dead five floors below at the bottom of the internal Atrium in Abbey’s London head office in Euston.

The courts, CPS, coroner, FSA, directors and police have closed ranks to prevent a criminal prosecution or investigation. These services all have large numbers of freemasons in their senior structures.

High ranking Freemasonry runs right through this banking crisis. All the failed banks, Northern Rock, Abbey, RBS, Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) had Freemasonry controlling their boards. Gordon Brown is a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason, as was Tony Blair; there are 400,000 of them in Britain.

Brown’s job seems to be to take advantage of the destruction of the banks, by pouring far too much of our economy into those ready made back holes, which will destroy the Pound Sterling.

The crisis was caused by the USA and EU governments deregulating banks in 1999. Massive, self collapsing bubbles predictably formed in every market including housing, stocks, and derivatives. It is deregulation that enabled corrupt boards to wreck their own banks. They now have estimated liabilities of £7.2 trillion or £250,000 per household; they should now go bust; Britain cannot afford to save them.

Freemasonry and Common Purpose are the European Unions’ foot soldiers on the ground in Britain. They know the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong Britain on the doorstep; we stopped them twice before in 1918 and 1945, and Britain has to be destroyed if the dictatorship is to succeed.

These British traitors get their massive payoffs for handing Britain to the EU on a plate, poverty stricken and stripped of democratic defences.

Many of those won’t realise that the initial deflation of the recession they worked so hard to create will, with the trillions Brown is borrowing for the banks, turn into hyper inflation with super high interest rates, and in two years they could be starving with the rest of us, their gravy trains and bribe money useless, their houses repossessed, as ours will be.

If you wish to avoid this ghastly future, you need to do your part now in talking to people about a General Strike against the EU, our government, Law Lords, and all the senior officials who are so deliberately sabotaging our nation.                                                                 David Noakes. eutruth.org.uk. 07974 437 097