Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

The EU expands further

Quote:

Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.)

There is a bit of history to this idea of politicians lying to the public to achieve what is supposed to be a noble end, a phenomenon we see on both sides of the pond. In the 1880s a group of wealthy English met in a private home in London to discuss how best to implement socialism and eliminate Christianity (which stands in the way). The group included Karl Marx’s sister, just to give you an idea of the ideology they represented.

They met later a number of times and eventually settled on a name for themselves: The Fabian Society, after a Roman general who had successfully used stealth to gain victory, thereby saving lives. They would do likewise, preferring stealth to usurp power over the violence used later in Russia.

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

Suppose you stop your car and ask me directions to a place. I direct you over a bridge, which happens to have collapsed in a recent hurricane. I tell you that it is narrow, so in order to avoid meeting another vehicle, you should speed up as you approach it. You do so and plunge to your death in the canyon below.

I didn’t harm you directly. But I caused you great violence through my stealthy and false directions.

So it is with the EU. It was sold as a community of states that would contribute to economic stability and greater harmony in Europe. No sovereignty would be lost and there would be a net gain for all.

But this community is now called a union and is a de facto empire with central control and almost no participation of the populace, with formidable power, ever-expanding boundaries (see Sonya Porter’s article below), a court, one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and a growing military, and its economic policies are leading, by socialist wealth redistribution, to what is expected by many economists to be the greatest economic crisis of our age.

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

Sonya Jay Porter on the ever-expanding, rarely-asking EU

The creation of a European union of states was considered a noble aspiration following the destruction of the continent in two world wars. First proposed in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 by the then-French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, it aimed to transform Europe through a “step-by-step” process, leading to the unification of Europe and so ensuring that the individual nations of Europe should never go to war with one other again. But although senior politicians may have been aware of the gradual subsuming of their countries into a Federal Europe, most of their populations were not.

In Britain, for instance FCO 30/1048 which was written in 1971 by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but only brought to light in 2001 under the 30 year rule, shows that the FCO was definitely aware of the gradual loss of Britain’s sovereignty that entry into the Common Market would entail. However, introducing the 1972 Bill, Geoffrey Rippon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty” and this was echoed by the Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.) So it would be unwise to take what the EU authorities say at face value, including the fact that it is a strictly European union of nations or that any other countries brought into its fold would be there simply as trading partners.

Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and may never be. Yet on 30th March 2012, the members of the European Commission (who are appointed by the governments of member states rather than elected) quietly decided to grant Turkish citizens the same residency and labour rights as full members of the Union.

This accord will apply to Turkish workers who are or have been legally employed in the territory of a member state and who are or who have been subject to the legislation of one or more member states, and their survivors; to the members of the family of workers referred to above, provided that these family members are or have been legally resident with the worker concerned while the worker is employed in a member state. The text reads:

“It follows from Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (the Ankara Agreement) and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (the Additional Protocol) that freedom of movement for workers between the Union and Turkey is to be secured by progressive stages.”

It adds,

“This proposal is part of a package of proposals which includes similar proposals with regard to the Agreements with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino. A first package with similar proposals in respect of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel was adopted by the Council in October 2010.”

As a mark of their devotion to openness and transparency, the following laconic note appears under the heading “Consultation of interested parties” –

“There was no need for external expertise.”

Later still, the following difficult-to-believe statement appears:

“The proposal has no implications for the Union budget.”

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel are not in the EU but many of their citizens will now be allowed to live in, and benefit from, EU countries – which could cause many problems, not least that of how the EU is going to cope with yet more unemployed at a time when the Union’s financial situation is so parlous.

Read more:

http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=919

 

Doing evil before someone else beats you to it

 

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?

“Patriotic” Dalmatians chasing Obama’s re-election fire truck

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

Tiller Murder Requires Proportionate Response in Perspective

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. Continue reading

This land is THEIR land

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.

Bankers in lockstep across the globe — coincidence?

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

Leadership/diversity training is pure brainwashing

Beware “leadership training” and “diversity training” – it’s brainwashing!

Friends, politicians, and particularly presidents, often use weasel words to beguile people. FDR spoke of a “New Deal,” which turned out to be Keynesian Big Government that greatly slowed the recovery from the Depression.

Lyndon Johnson used the “Great Society” to sell welfare.

Obama used “Change” to mask an attempt to nationalize American business and industry.

In the UK, they came up with “Common Purpose” to sell the EU, a veritable dictatorship which makes national governments redundant. Their only purpose: to harmonize (meaning, rubber-stamp) legislation handed down from Brussels.

Below is an urgent message from our friends in Britain. Note the words “common cause” in an Obama speech cited therein. Although the far-left global government advocates at Common Cause are only interested in enslaving Britons (as if mocking the famous lyrics of “Britannia”:  “The Britons never never never will be slaves”), they have inadvertently and unwittingly created a true common cause, namely, the backlash to this insidious plot: throwing off the yoke of the international cabal of leftists and bankers who run Europe like a Chicago gang boss.

The leadership training and diversity training we see on both sides of the Atlantic are only aimed at changing the culture to delete Judeo-Christian values and replace them with a taste for Leftist totalitarianism.

Ironically, this nefarious idea carries within it the seeds of its own destruction: The agents of change are so intent on destroying Christianity that they are inviting hordes of Muslims to Europe. Likewise, for the same reason, they agitate in the “gay” community to spread that gospel of “gay” rights.

Clearly, the Muslims far outnumber homosexuals and once they have enough power, they will inevitably demand, and get, Sharia law throughout Europe. Under Shariah law, homosexuals are to be put to death.

Leftism in its present form will die along with the Christian culture they sought to destroy. This is the same sort of myopia that prevailed in certain islands of the Pacific, where the mongoose was introduced to kill rats.

It turned out the mongoose preferred chicken.

Donald Hank

PS: Be sure to see the alert at the end of this report re. Officer Stephanie Mohr. She is innocent and needs to be released immediately — another victim of political correct “diversity training” in government.

URGENT – Forward this to all you know

Please take the time to watch this excellent interview with our colleague Brian Gerrish. It is a MUST WATCH on both sides of the Atlantic. This interview exposes a force that is largely unknown to the public and even unknown to those who are aware of the coming new world dis-order. This organisation Brain speaks of is pervasive, insidious and VERY DANGEROUS. It is being used to UNDERMINE EVERY ASPECT of society and reshape it with sinister intent. In the UK, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden it calls itself COMMON PURPOSE. We know it is operating in the USA, but under a different name or names. However, it operates in the UK under the guise of “Diversity Training, for Change.” Common Purpose is a registered charity! We would like to hear from you, wherever you are, about your experience with LEADERSHIP TRAINING programmes (including children). Listen to Brian and forward this message because although you may not yet be aware of its function, it will no doubt be happening in your country, city, or town and it is vitally important to expose this nefarious mind changing tool kit. It is employed at every stage of public life, private business, education, health, politics and last but not least – the LAW. It has a massive Global Agenda……………..!

Edge Media Interview with Brian Gerrish – MUST WATCH 

http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/1731669&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=http%3A//tpucorg.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A//blip.tv/%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true&allowm4v=true

See details and links below which provide evidence of Obama’s continued references to Common Purpose which means absolutely nothing to the man/women in the street, but could have sent an insidious message of intent to all Common Purpose Leaders across the world.

The following link is to USA Today , the headline of the 3th October reads Obama: Keeping cool, focusing on ‘common purpose’

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-08-leadership-obama_N.htm

“Obama has applied the same model in a presidential campaign striking for its grass-roots strength and lack of backbiting. ‘In a business that is notorious for internal fighting, he’s been able to keep all the people in his campaign focused on the common purpose,’ says Geoffrey Garin, a strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nomination bid.”

AGAIN see The Los Angeles Times  25 December  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-radio25-2008dec25,0,7685076.story
“Obama urges renewed ‘sense of common purpose’ in holiday message”

 Again see the Washington Independent  http://washingtonindependent.com/15001/obama-makes-closing-argument-on-common-purpose

Obama Makes Closing Argument on Common Purpose

…”Each of us has a responsibility to work hard and look after ourselves and our families, and each of us has a responsibility to our fellow citizens.  That’s what’s been lost these last eight years — our sense of common purpose; of higher purpose.  And that’s what we need to restore right now.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text

Text of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address

Obama mentioned the word COMMON in his inaugural address “6 times”. 

Websites:
www.cpexposed.com

ukcolumn.org

 

URGENT:

Release officer Mohr

http://mccainalert.blogspot.com/2008/11/last-chance-that-we-have-to-help.html The case as told by her legal counsel, David Martin of LELDF

 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/stephanie-mohr.htm

 

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-womensissues&tid=3211

 

http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/the-punitive-excesses-of-american-criminal-justice/

 

http://www.policedefense.org/newsletters/fall2003-p5.html Prosecutors (did they have “diversity training?) played “the race card” in her second trial and convicted her.

Does pro-life have to mean anti-sovereignty?

Does pro-life mean anti-sovereignty?

 

by Donald Hank

 A while back pro-lifers started reminding us that the babies that were aborted since Wade/Roe would have been productive American workers and that there were some 40 million of them. They said that this shortfall had to be made up by immigrants and strongly suggested that God had therefore allowed the current situation of millions of illegals from Mexico. They sound almost gleeful as they announce this.

So illegal immigration and all the associated ills like increased crime, drug abuse and extra money spent on social services is a visitation of God’s wrath on America for the sin of abortion?

That’s the old liberal guilt by association theory. But a closer look shows that it wasn’t God who intervened to punish us but rather the neocons under George Bush-the same ones who teamed up with the Democrats to punish us via our financial markets. And it is not the Christian God who started and perpetuated this myth but rather some corrupt left-leaning church leaders, including many evangelicals, who use this argument to defang opponents who have legitimate concerns about the invasion from Mexico.

A while back I got in trouble with some of the anti-sovereigns in the pro-life movement when I ran my article exposing pro-lifer Mike Huckabee’s choice of Richard Haass as his proposed secretary of state. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is a huge red flag, but worse, had recently written a paper saying that we need to “rethink” the idea of sovereignty (meaning it is no longer needed in our post-modern world). I had also shown elsewhere how prominent church leaders like Dr. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, had criticized “nationalism,” and had shown that criticizing nationalism is just a sneaky way to undermine sovereignty. (If you understand that Land also endorses Al Gore’s ideas, it is not hard to imagine where he is situated on the political spectrum.) This criticism of nationalism is found throughout the denominations in America, which are coming under increasing centralized control and becoming little more than an arm of the Left, which is the main reason why you will almost never hear a “conservative” or “evangelical” leader or pastor speaking out against lawless immigration practices or sanctuary cities.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, he has become increasingly vocal about his pro-illegal immigration views, apparently believing he is invincible. An ad his campaign recently ran in Spanish (endorsed by McCain himself) absurdly “blames” the Obama camp for blocking immigration “reform,” which smart people know is code for amnesty. Frankly, folks, if conservatives knew the Obama camp were opposed to amnesty, I am sure some would consider voting for Obama, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I am not so sure it was the Democrats who torpedoed the amnesty bill. If I recall correctly, a lot of us, myself included, lobbied so hard against that bill (supported by McCain and Bush, for example) that the congressional phone lines went down.

But McCain must take us all for a bunch of bumpkins if he thinks there aren’t any conservatives who understand Spanish and can find out what he is up to.

Michelle Malkin recently slammed McCain hard on the border-amnesty issue. And there are good blogs that show how shameless officials and their immigration policies are causing unnecessary killings, rapes and other hardships on Americans. CNN’s Lou Dobbs does an outstanding job reporting on illegal immigration, and I recommend you tune out of Fox News and into CNN for as long as his show lasts.

But Malkin and Dobbs are almost alone these days. You won’t hear much meaningful talk on illegal immigration on talk radio or Fox News these days. Sean Hannity is still blathering about the evils of the Democrats as if the Republican leadership were back in the hands of Ron Reagan, but in his interviews with McCain and Palin (where does she stand?), never mentions illegal immigration, as if the issue has gone away.

But we are far from that these days, and short of an act of God, we are in for 4 very very rocky years, no matter who is elected.

Oh, and if you believe pro-life automatically means anti-sovereignty, I have a bridge I can sell you.

 

Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.

 

By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ-the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church-Larry Bland and Nate Spencer-were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads-all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

 

Read more