Behind the Subversion


Olavo de Carvalho


(Translated by Laigle’s Forum)

 Part 3 of a 3-part series on Supranationalism

Abstract: The story of the manipulation of Brazilian patriots by leftwing shysters is a tragicomedy in and of itself.




At the beginning of 2001, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a billionaire think tank from which both presidents and secretaries of state have emerged, and which some consider a kind of shadow government of the USA, created a task force brimming with PhDs, presided over by historian Kenneth Maxwell and entrusted with proposing modifications in Washington’s policy toward Brazil. The first compendium of erudite opinions, published shortly thereafter on February 12, emphasizes “the urgency of working with Brazil in the fight against the scourge of drugs and their corrupting influence on governments.”


APOLITICAL COMBAT At that time, with the former cartels destroyed, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), deliberately supported by the Columbia Plan of the Clinton administration on the pretext that combating the drug trade should be apolitical, emerged as kingpins in the Latin American drug market. The FARC, a communist organization, had entered the drug market to finance its terrorist operations and its power grab.  Since 1990, it was part of the São Paulo Forum, where they articulated their actions as the general strategy of the Latin American Left, securing political support that made them virtually immune to prosecution in various countries where they operated.


BEIRA-MAR –  In Brazil, for example, despite the hundreds of tons of cocaine they were dumping on the market every year, thanks to their member Fernandinho Beira-Mar, and despite the fire they occasionally exchanged with the army in the Amazon jungle, the FARC was well treated. Its leaders traveled freely in the streets under the protection of the federal authorities and were received as official guests by the PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores=Workers Party) government of the State of Rio Grande. Thus, never had relations been more cordial between the drug trade and politics. The relations threatened to become more intense because Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, founder of the Forum and hence major orchestrator of the common strategy between legal parties of the left and criminal organizations, seemed poised to be the next president of Brazil. The growing integration of the illicit drug trade and politics therefore made it urgent to combat “the drug scourge and its influence on government.” And the only way to do this was, obviously, to dismantle the São Paulo Forum. Seen from this prospective, the suggestion of the task force actually seemed quite timely. However, only those who failed to grasp the subtleties of the shadow government construe it this way.  Taken at face value, this phrase is in fact the diametric opposite of what the CFR intended.


SEMI-SECRET BODY – So the São Paulo Forum, in order to continue tampering unhampered with the internal policies of various Latin American nations, needed to maintain its capacity as a discrete or semi-secret body, and the head of the task force himself assisted in this.  In an article published in the New York Review of Books, reproduced in the Folha de São Paulo, Maxwell declared that the Forum simply did not exist, because “even the best informed specialists with whom I spoke in Brazil had never heard of it.” For a professional historian to trust the opinion of third parties rather than going to the primary sources, which were abundantly available at the Forum’s venue, was an outrageous display of ineptitude.  At that time, Mr. Maxwell belonged (and still belongs) to the circle of the enlightened who were used to (and are still used to) being heard with the utmost respect by the Brazilian media, particularly the Folha de São Paulo. This seemed to provide irrefutable proof that he was in fact an ass who had behaved so extravagantly in keeping with his animal instincts. However, I need to point out that this did not explain everything.  Shortly thereafter, another intellectual of great repute in asinine circles, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, professor of Brazilian history at the Sorbonne and a columnist of Veja, in a debate sponsored by CFR, brilliantly lent his formidable authority to the thesis of the non-existence of the São Paulo Forum, further promoting the notion that I had been the creator of that legendary organization… Paying obeisance to the continental coordination of the Latin American communist movement seemed to have become an entrenched habit of the CFR.


NEW YORK STOCK ECHANGE – This could be merely an innocent clustering of interpretation errors if this body had not simultaneously cultivated another habit: good relations with the FARC. In 1999, the president of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Grasso, a member of the CFR, paid a friendly visit to FARC commander Raul Reyes and came away applauding the community of interests between the Columbian mob and the “progressive” financial elites of the USA.  Shortly thereafter, another two members of the CFR, James Kimsey, CEO of America Online, and Joseph Robert, head of the real estate conglomerate J.E. Robert, had an enthusiastic meeting with the founder of the FARC himself, Manuel Marulanda, and shortly thereafter, with Columbian president Pastrana, to persuade him, successfully, to make up with the guerilla drug lords.


SAO PAULO FORUM – The division of labor was clear-cut.  The potentates of the CFR negotiated with the military and financial mainstay of the São Paulo Forum while their intellectual lackeys handled the detail of covering their tracks, declaring that the Forum did not even exist.  The CFR touted its intention to eliminate the influence of the drug trade in governments even as it actively assisted in making this influence more far-reaching and productive than ever. Another member of the CFR was President Clinton, whose renowned Columbia Plan had resulted first and foremost in eliminating the competition and delivering to the FARC a near-monopoly of the Latin American drug trade. In 2002, the Latin America policy of the globalist grand masters underwent an upgrade. The effort to embellish the FARC was now boosted by the mission of making the president of the Sao Paulo Forum the president of Brazil.  A few days before the 2002 election, the American ambassador, Donna Hrinak, who – though I am unaware whether she personally belonged to the CFR – is one of the founders of a body closely associated with it, i.e., the Inter-American Dialogue, brazenly campaigned for the PT candidate, proclaiming him “an embodiment of the American dream.” Although this constituted illegal and improper interference of a foreign authority in a national election – failing to cause a scandal only because even imperialist despotism becomes Mr. Nice Guy when it works for the politically correct side – and although the wording chosen for this propaganda was an unparalleled absurdity (since it is highly unlikely that many Americans would consider it their life’s ambition to stop working at the age of twenty-four years to make a career in a communist party), the expression was so successful that, thereafter, it was repeated verbatim, with no mention of the source, in an article in New York Review of Books, which enthusiastically celebrated Lula’s victory.  Guess who wrote the article? The infallible Kenneth Maxwell.


LEFTISM – In view of these facts, would anyone still hesitate to perceive that the links between the prim and proper leftism of the CFR and the blood-and-guts leftism of the FARC leadership are more intimate than would fit the stereotype of an essential and irreducible hostility between reactionary capitalists and revolutionary communists? The direction of the events is only too transparent, but the brains of our elites are still incapable of projecting over them their own obscurity so as to avoid the glaring conclusions they impose.


CONSPIRACY THEORY – Obviously, I am not endorsing the idea that the CFR, as an institution, is a pro-communist conspiracy center. Many of its members are American patriots who would never knowingly endorse a policy prejudicial to their country. But one cannot hide the fact that, somewhere in there, a group of incalculably powerful world-reforming billionaires has prompted this body to influence the Washington government, almost invariably with success, in the most leftward and anti-American direction imaginable.  In the USA this is general knowledge. No one doubts it.  The only thing open to discussion is the “conspiracy theory” to explain it.  This theory has among its defenders some first-class intellectuals such as Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Harvard and mentor of Bill Clinton, and the communist Anthony Sutton, author of the classic Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, (4 vols). Contributing further to the credibility of this thesis is the fact that the former is an enthusiastic proponent and the latter a severe critic of the globalist elite. And what makes this theory more attractive is the fact that the CFR, recognizing its existence to the point of offering an explicit disavowal on its official website, avoids debating with these two heavyweights and with dozens of other serious scholars who have written on the subject, preferring instead to claim a facile and bogus victory over the popularist and caricatured versions of the conspiracy thesis invented by guys like Lyndon LaRouche and pastor Pat Robertson. The latter is a good-natured fellow who never would deliberately lie, but he is a fall guy, the continental champion of ecclesiastic blunders. Debating with him is easy pickings because he invariably will wind up spouting some nonsense and wasting his opinion, even when he is right. LaRouche, who got to be a presidential nominee for the presidency of the Democrat Party, is himself  a conspirator who only sees the conspiracies of others through the distorting lens of his own objectives and interests. To take these two as representative spokesmen of the conspiracy accusations against the CFR is like defeating Dr. Emir Sader[1]  and proclaiming victory over Karl Marx. The fact that the CFR uses this handy escape hatch to duck the accusations is a serious indicator that they have at least some foundation in truth. 


LAROUCHE – To give you an idea of the extent to which our economical, political and military elite is alienated and marginalized, we need only note that their main source of information about the CFR, Inter-American Dialogue, and other globalist organizations, has been precisely Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, whose Executive Intelligence Review is read by the luminaries of the War College as though he were the purest example of inside information. He is so well informed that he classified me – me of all people,  for crying out loud – as an apostle of globalism, simply because I wrote at that time for a newspaper called O Globo, meaning The Globe. All of the other known sources in the country are left-wing, and what they have in common with Mr. LaRouche’s bulletin is that they grotesquely distort the facts, presenting globalist circles as representatives of good old “American Imperialism” in a leveraged struggle against national sovereignties of poorer countries. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear so many Brazilians without a  leftist bone in their body taking this version seriously and using it as a basis for their strategic analyses and government proposals.  It is ridiculous and tragic at the same time.  With so many primary sources and high-level diagnostic means available, why eat from a dumpster and boast of dining on filet mignon?  Only blossoms of ignorance and self-deceit spring from the underdeveloped cultural backwater. The site, for example, presents the Inter-American Dialogue as being replete with “ultra-right wing personalities,” and these as “representative of the American establishment.”  In the US, even school children know that that Establishment means “leftist chic,” and that neither are there nor can there be “ultra-conservative rightwing personalities” in it, and that if any national sovereignty is put at risk by the establishment, it is first and foremost that of the USA. The lone and fierce debate fueled by conservatives and nationalists against the CFR, Inter American Dialogue and globalist circles in general is completely unknown to the chatterboxes of the Brazilian Higher War College and to the “band of generals” who believe the leftist sources and not Mr. LaRouche. Among this multitude of credulous yokels are numerous sincere patriots. But the destruction of a country begins when its patriots are dumbed down, leaving the monopoly on brain power to traitors, conspirators and revolutionaries. The story of the manipulation of Brazilian patriots by shysters of the left is essentially a tragicomedy. For decades, the leftwing leadership has been subjecting these people to Pavlovian conditioning on the basis of rewards and punishments, which has proven effective to the point that many officials with ideologically anti-communist credentials now believe it is a most honorable undertaking to transform our soldiers into ditch diggers and tractor drivers in the service of the Landless Workers Movement (MST). How is it that a human mind can be made to wallow in this abyss of stupidity? It’s simple: all you need to do is cultivate an elite team of smooth talking leftists and divide them into two groups entrusted with opposite tasks – one infiltrating the media, dedicated to spreading filthy lies, fermenting antimilitary hate; and the other, well situated in military circles and in the Brazilian Higher War College, entrusted with stroking the ego of the armed forces and prompting them to conciliation and collaboration with the continental communist strategy, driven by their own patriotism, readily transformed into anti-Americanism by an ingeniously calculated stream of disinformation. Including, of course, that provide by Mr. LaRouche. The first team features Caco Barcelos, Cecília Coimbra and Luiz Eduardo Greenhalgh.[2] The second, Márcio Moreira Alves, Mário Augusto Jacobskind and Cesar Benjamin. The good cop – bad cop treatment leaves the victim bewildered and subjugated. Between slaps and kisses, a goodly portion of our officialdom has readily taken the bait, showing the same IQ as a laboratory rat. The recent speech of the army commander in Porto Alegre shows to what extent is slandered, marginalized and downtrodden institution is relieved and comforted by the humiliating offer of a miserable seat at the banquet of its traditional detractors.


Similar tricks were played on entrepreneurs and politicians, with equal effectiveness. And this is why it became so difficult to explain to Brazilians what American conservatives, even the most dull witted  like Pat Robertson , understand perfectly well: that the globalist elite is enemy number one of American national sovereignty and, indirectly, of all other sovereignties.


P.S.  – A friend sent me the following memo: “On the 30th of last month, the São Paolo police arrested a Peruvian woman, Juliana Custódio, implicated in the death of a fireman at the time.  The television channel TV Bandeirantes took special note of the case.  The Globo commented and forgot the matter.  It so happens that yesterday, a judge interviewed by Band [Brazilian TV channel] said the following: “in ten years, the biggest terrorist network ever seen in the Americas will be formed in Brazil.”  I, for one, believe that  this “thing” will come about before that, but it is inevitable.  The Peruvian lady is alleged to be a liaison  between the FARC and the First Capital Command[3] (PCC). “


Meanwhile, Mr Lula continues to attribute the wave of violence in Sao Paulo to the (non-existent)  lack of openings for children in schools. He is the most poker-faced cynic the world has ever known.


Published by Diario do Comércio, 06-05-2006



Olavo de Carvalho is a philosopher and the author of several books, including O Imbecil Coletivo: Atualidades Inculturais Brasileiras (1996) and O Futuro do Pensamento Brasileiro – Estudos sobre o Nosso Lugar no Mundo (1997). He writes for three very influential dailies in Brazil: Folha de S. Paulo, O Globo (from Rio) and Zero Hora (from Porto Alegre, state of Rio Grande do Sul). His articles can be found at and To contact him, write to

[1] Emir Sader, a Brazilian politician and academician who blindly defends the Soviet experiment, debated the author on several occasions and was so roundly trounced that he later denied ever having debated him-PR.

[2] Left wing journalist and academicians.—Translator

[3] A powerful Brazilian criminal organization.—Tr.

IMMIGRATION – The Call Effect in Spain: Problem for Europe

Laigle’s Forum translation of a paper by HO


The Active Citizen’s Website in Spain

(The original Spanish-language article is a PDF file available at their site. Or click here to view it)


May, 2006





Spain has been a country of immigration over the last decade. However, following the measures taken by the government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain has become the main port of entry for illegal immigration in Europe, putting the achievements of the Schengen Agreement at risk. The results of the “call effect” produced by Zapatero’s demagoguery is evident. Today, Spain has ca. three million immigrants, one million of which are illegal but are soon to be legalized. This will be followed by the reuniting of families. Meanwhile, the people involved are victims of deceit; Spaniards are victims of the disloyalty of the government, which rewards illegal behavior; and the member countries of the European Union (EU) fear an avalanche of uncontrolled immigration triggered by Zapatero.


Zapatero Unleashes the “Call Effect.” Warning Voices in Spain and Europe


One year ago, the minister of labor and social affairs, Jesús Caldera, headed up the biggest legalization operation of illegal immigrants ever seen in Spain, with the passage of the new Immigration Code. Pursuing the idea of “papers for everyone,” Zapatero’s Spanish Socialist Labor Party (PSOE) had already nurtured in his years of opposition to the Popular Party (PP), Caldera legalized hundreds of thousands of illegals, ensuring that the law would be enforced later to avoid illegality. Twelve months later, official statistics are already confirming that there are more than one million foreigners without papers among us. Like Zapatero, Caldera has also denied the existence of the “call effect.”


Despite the politically correct discourse, the message sent was “open doors,” “papers for everyone.” Something like saying: “Break the law and sneak across the border and I’ll reward you with Spanish and European documentation.”


The data will not go away: Spain is the port of entry for illegal immigration in Europe. And not only conspicuous immigration in small boats and canoes, because that only accounts for 2-3% of the total illegal immigration arriving daily to our country. There is another silent but much more numerous immigration arriving in buses across the Pyrenees, particularly through La Junquera, or by air, notably with Barajas as the destination.


Ultimately, Spanish immigration law refers to the pattern of roots, meaning that if a person is in Spain illegally for two years and at the end of these two years, presents a labor contract, he is legalized. This means that many of the immigrants come to Spain legally as “tourists,” and then lay low until these two years are up, after which they show a contract. Spain is the only country in the EU that grants this opportunity to illegals, one of the major causes of the “call effect.”


From the standpoint of the European Union, the situation caused by Zapatero and his “call effect” is incomprehensible. With these legalizations, Zapatero has made Spain and Europe a house with two doors, one with a foolproof lock, secure video system and metal detector, and the other open wide or with an ordinary lock that anyone can pick. The application of the Schengen Agreement by the signatory countries could put the Spanish government in a very precarious position.


In fact, it’s been many years since any European country has practiced the Zapatero-style legalizations. France, for example, a country with an immigration tradition, has not been “giving out papers” for thirteen years, and Italy implemented legalization in 2001 but only for children and grandchildren of Italian citizens.


Zapatero and Caldera never expected the protests made by our European members, who have accused the Spanish government of having created “an inflammatory precedent for all of Europe.” Thus, Zapatero and his minister Caldera did not care and do not care today that the immigrants legalized by Spain wind up settling in other EU countries. Neither Zapatero nor Caldera seem to care that the “call effect” caused by a single irresponsible government winds up affecting all of the rest. This is social and political non-solidarity and irresponsibility.


Aftermath of Legalization and “Call Effect”


At the beginning of 2005, there were 1,350,000 undocumented foreigners in Spain.


In compliance with the new Immigration Code passed on December 30, 2004, some 700,000 foreigners were legalized (for the sixth time in the last 20 years) in Spain between February 7 and May 7 of 2005. Hence, some 650,000 illegals remained in May of 2005.


Today, one year later, there are again nearly one million persons living illegally in Spain, according to the Secretariat of Immigration and the Census: The 650,000 who were already here plus those who are not even registered in the census (between 100,000 and 150,000), who have entered Spain illegally over the last twelve months (the National Institute of Statistics estimates the number of non-EU foreigners arriving in our country at half a million annually).


Further, there will be another indirect and automatic legalization, namely, that of 200,000 illegal Romanian immigrants following the foreseeable entry of Romania into the EU next January 1. The total number of Romanians in Spain is somewhat more than twice that, almost 1% of the Spanish population, and they are arriving in Spain at the rate of 80,000-100,000 per year. Within a few months, they will be legalized as EU citizens without filing any application. The effect is felt not only by Spain. The entry into the EU entitles them to live in any other country of the Union.


And the “call effect” is not only for immigrants. With Zapatero, the mafias linked to immigration and immigrant exploitation have found a paradise in Spain. These mafias treat the immigrants like silent slaves, and the “call effect” is a whole governmental propaganda network that inadvertently favors anyone who traffics in human beings.


Zapatero’s Reaction After Causing the Call Effect


Zapatero doesn’t want to hear about the “call effect.” As if banning any opposition to it would make it disappear.


Such is the extent of Zapatero’s denial of the “call effect” that his government, via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Miguel Angel Miguel Ángel Moratinos, and via Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, the spokesman of the socialist parliamentary group in Congress, lied when he denied that the government had received a report dated December 2005 that warned of the mass casualties of immigrants from Mauritania. It took some powerful movers in the press to budge the Zapatero government.


In March, there were mass arrivals of immigrants to the Canary Islands. But never as many as on May 11, when 456 illegal immigrants arrived by canoe. On the fifteenth, only four days later, another 647 “undocumented” landed again all at once. Fear of a tarnished government image prompted the socialist government, within a matter of hours, to call an urgent meeting in La Moncloa, approve the bombastic Africa Plan and call for European services and aid…after having ignored the recommendations of its fellow members and Brussels.


The Africa Plan consists of “more control and alertness, more diplomatic cooperation, more humanitarian aid and more Europe.”


In the internal plan, the government claims to have beefed up military air-sea assets existing in the region of the Canaries and to have increased the resources of intelligence services, services it ignored when they warned the government of the deaths of thousands of immigrants in the Atlantic, a tragedy about which the Minister of the Interior, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, lied once again.


In the bilateral plan, the government claims to have deployed joint sea patrols with Morocco and Mauritania, approved others with Nigeria, Niger and Guinea Bissau, and increased the diplomatic presence, creating or reinforcing offices of various types in Mali, Sudan and Cape Verde, Ethiopia and Mali, Angola, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa. They also claim to be activating repatriations, although the Spanish government’s intention and the real possibility of implementing these are two different things, given that the national origins of most of the immigrants to be repatriated cannot be demonstrated and the country in question refuses to accept them.


With regard to the EU, the government has applied for “logistical support” to the European Agency of External Border Control of the EU and has tried to explain this Africa Plan in Brussels to the president of the European Commission and to various Commissioners. In so doing, the government is hoping the EU will deploy naval and air assets to control the arrival of illegal immigrants from Africa.


That the vice president of the Spanish government should point out that the problem is part of European policy  is a show of amazing cynicism, because the problem for Europe has been created or aggravated by the Zapatero government. Thus, Zapatero intends to involve Europe in the solution of a problem aggravated by Spain. Does Zapatero believe that the European powers will be manipulated by his good words and bad deeds?


The Spanish government has announced an increase in aid to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) operating in the Canaries and has approved a Royal Decree that regulates the direct concession of subsidies to social service organizations for services to immigrants in a vulnerable situation who arrive at the Canaries, the autonomous government of which has demanded priority attention from the government and has demanded that illegal immigration be declared a State problem.


These measures look impressive but are little more than cosmetic. Zapatero denies the “call effect” and all of its consequences to the public. To make matters worse, his government is only taking steps against illegal immigration from Africa. Zapatero is not saying or doing anything with regard to the masses of immigrants arriving daily by land and air from the rest of the world.


Meanwhile, Zapatero’s government calls those who defend the dignity of immigrants and any other human being, the creation of fair laws and their enforcement, and generous rationality as a model for any immigration policy racists and xenophobes.


European Rejection Following the “Call Effect”


In Spain, sociological research reveals that immigration is, after unemployment, the main concern of citizens. It is an issue that must be treated with honesty and fairness as the best guarantee of the rights of immigrants and the citizenry of countries hosting them, in the interest of good integration and coexistence.


Two French ministers of the interior, the now Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Nicolas Sarkozy, have publicly expressed their reservations about the hazardousness of the legalizations undertaken by the Spanish (and Italian) government “because they produce a call effect.” Before a commission of the French senate, Sarkozy said that “The Italian authorities have legalized 700,000 clandestine workers on the basis of labor contracts in 2002, and the Spanish have legalized 600,000 this year.” Moreover, the French government communicated this extreme to the Zapatero presidency, because a goodly portion of the nearly 100,000 illegal immigrants entering France every year, according to Sarkozy, do so from Spain.


Germany and Holland have also been sharp in their criticism of the negligence and major lack of solidarity on the part of Spain in the legalization of illegal immigrants, in making unilateral decisions that, while they are national responsibility, should not be made without consulting member countries. Both countries have introduced restrictive laws as a stop gap in dealing with the problem and have urged Spain to follow their example.


Following  the French and German criticism of the Spanish actions, Friso Roscam, spokesman of Franco Frattini, vice president of the European Commission, stated that the legalization of immigrants without papers by the Spanish government contributes to the “call effect” bringing in more illegal foreigners, and is a bad example for Europe.


The European Commission and the Luxembourg presidency of the EU decided to initiate the creation of an information and prior notice system to advise on important decisions on immigration such as Zapatero’s plans to legalize illegals, which subvert the interests of the entire Union. This matter is being studied by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior.


The Commission recalled that the Twenty-Five must follow a “global approach that covers all stages of the immigration process, in consideration of their deeper causes and the policies of entrance, admission, integration and repatriation, if necessary.”


The EU does not oppose the legalization of illegal immigrants but requires that this process “be harmonized and based on the same criteria for the granting of resident permits and with the same obligations associated with these permits.”


Consequences of the “call effect” are saturation of the public and private – particularly Catholic – receiving facilities and the public health system, the health risk, the overburdening of the security forces, the loss of respect for these forces and for the law on the part of immigrants, who do not flee the police force but rather seek it out so as to be detained and start the process of obtaining “papers,” and also the social alarm. The latter aspect, of maximum urgency, is motivated by matters such as the associated organized crime and terrorism.


Lack of Loyalty and Enforcement


According to the report “La Exclusión Social y el Estado de Bienestar en España” [Social Exclusion and the Welfare State in Spain], prepared by the Employee Home Foundation (FUHEM), Spain is below the European mean with regard to inclusion policies. Worse, it increases the lack of solidarity in Spain and requires the development of a National Inclusion Plan within the framework of real social policy.


The lack of social integration programs is blatant (because, for one thing, the PSOE does not recognize any cultural value in integrating immigrants). Zapatero has irresponsibly triggered a wave of immigration without stopping to think for a moment about the fate to be suffered by hundreds of thousands of desperate people.


Repatriations are not being carried out even when they are possible, and on the islands and throughout Spain, unprecedented tension is building up. The masses of immigrants that have recently arrived are not finding the paradise they expected. The “Caldera Law” created a false illusion for them and for Canarian citizens, essentially a problem that cannot be resolved.


The first vice president of the government, María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, stated that “anyone who comes here illegally will leave.” This is not the case. It is not always possible to repatriate all of the known illegals we have here in Spain. The cost of this lack of enforcement is being borne by the immigrants and, of course, by those who have no responsibility: the autonomous communities, the district councils and the citizenry in general.


An example of the abandonment of immigrants to their fate once they are repatriated, with no guarantee, was the case of the immigrants expelled by Morocco in the dessert without food or water after they were returned by Spain. Possibly because they did not want to irritate Sultan Mohamed VI and because they did not deem the fate of hundreds of human beings the concern of our government, Zapatero neither complained nor demanded specific humanitarian guarantees for these repatriated citizens.


The misfortunes of immigrants are no concern of this government. The Spanish Socialist Worker Party lied in the person of Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, and the government lied in the person of its Minister of Foreign Affairs when they denied having information on the massive tragic deaths at sea.


We Spaniards wonder why Zapatero does not meet his obligations. That is, why he fails to impede the undocumented immigrants, expel illegals, support civil society in humanitarian care, and guarantee immigrants decent treatment. Once again, Zapatero is headed in one direction and the citizens in the other.


Despite the fact that this extraordinary legalization caused some underground workers to emerge, more than half of illegals are estimated to have remained in the same situation, and added to these are new influxes of illegals.




The “call effect” and the treatment this government is giving to immigration manipulates immigrants, the first to be hurt, and is unfair to Spaniards and to the European Union, particularly those countries who share the Schengen space with Spain.


Thanks to the call effect:


? an illusion has been created without the political will or ability to deal with it in real terms;

? sooner or later, immigrants will be blackmailed with the fear of: “Either vote for me or be booted out”;

? spontaneous natural immigration has multiplied;

? a deaf ear is being turned to warnings from other member countries and from the EU at large, and yet the government complains to them;

? many immigrants will easily migrate from Spain to other Schengen countries, where they think they can live better.


The result of the Spanish campaign of extraordinary legalization of illegal immigrants shows that the Zapatero government is incapable of producing legal immigration that satisfies Spain’s real needs in harmony with the needs of Europe.


All of this is the fruit of Zapatero’s populist demagoguery, the absolutely laxity of his government toward illegal immigration and illegal hiring of these illegal immigrants, and the government’s inability to create and regulate the necessary legal immigration.


The situation of illegal immigrants in Spain is deteriorating day by day from a political, economic, social and health standpoint, because the services of the State, many of them dispensed via autonomic mechanisms, are overburdened. Even private humanitarian aid services provided by organizations of the Catholic Church, whose financing the government is trying to hobble, are making remarkable efforts to provide decent care for this group. Even the legalization process is stalled, causing a backup in the processing of thousands and thousands of applications for legalization. A real social powder keg.


This state of affairs requires an immediate response on the part of the government. Illegal immigration must be reduced or stopped and legal immigration must be managed according to the real demand for immigrants in this country. is no advocate of shutting down the borders. That would be out of step and, more to the point, impossible. defends immigrants’ rights to come here but under decent conditions acceptable both to them and to their hosts. advocates the development of policies for integrating immigrants in the Spanish culture and tradition. What rejects is the actions of this government, which promote illegal immigration that is bad for immigrants and their countries of origin, bad for Spain and bad for Europe.


Let’s not put gates around our country. Let’s try to cooperate with the development of countries that send immigrants. Securing borders is necessary, but that alone would be no more than a stop gap measure. Something more is needed to deal with illegal immigration, and Zapatero is not doing it. To the contrary, sending ten or so diplomats on a trip is not sufficient to satisfy basic needs, particularly because it keeps open the invitation to cheat. The “call effect” persists. Legalizations like those carried out by this government only prompt xenophobic and racist reactions. The manipulation of desperate people is a blow to their dignity, and Zapatero’s policy is dehumanizing to immigrants. Showing concern for true integration is much more than giving out “papers.” Mr. Zapatero: No more “papers” in exchange for lives…and votes.


References on the Web [Please see the original document at for these references. These are translations of the titles. If you find your curiosity piqued about any of these, write to I will try to give you the gist.—Don]


The government approves the Africa Plan and asks the EU for logistic help to slow down illegal immigration. New record in the Canaries: 647 “undocumented” in one day


The arrival of 647 “undocumented” immigrants to the Canaries yesterday in 9 canoes marks a new record


Six canoes with 456 undocumented immigrants onboard arrive at the coasts of Tenerife


Brussels believes legalizations like those of Spain contribute to the “call effect” of more illegals


Canoes arrive at Caldera’s call


The Canary Islands are drowning in the “call effect”


Acebes charges that the “call effect” of immigration is caused by Zapatero’s “irresponsible” policy

He says that it is creating a “call effect.” France toughens its laws against illegal immigration and criticizes the legalizations in Spain and Italy


More than 970 undocumented arrive. De la Vega, Caldera and Rubalcaba meet today in the wake of criticism over the wave of “undocumented”


The promised measures are not enforced. The Canaries criticize the government’s “recklessness” in the face of a new mass influx of immigrants


259 “undocumented” reach the coasts of Tenerife in 15 hours. Massive arrival of immigrants on the anniversary of the government’s legalization process


400,000 Romanian immigrants will have papers in eight months


The gap between the two shores multiplies


The force of the greatest human tide on the planet


The ministry of the interior exposes Moratinos and Rubalcaba, stating that the tide of boats from Mauritania “is not from three months ago”


Spain’s search for legal immigration


A report warns that the Spanish state is dead last in Europe in social inclusion


New version of the immigration code passed on December 30, 2004


General information on the legalization process


Immigration law and the Schengen Agreement


Germany and Holland blame Spain for not consulting on the legalization of immigrants


Schengen Agreement and agreement on application of the Schengen Agreement


Membership protocol of June 25, 1991


V FUHEM report on social policies and welfare state


Appeals of immigrants jam Immigration


I do call it Conspiracy (Part 1 of a Three-Part Series) by Donald HankOnly a child could say “the emperor’s naked.” Today, I am that child, playing the role of the innnocent nobody with nothing to lose. Dozens of conservative Christian bloggers can say the same thing with me today, because ours is a labor of love. Most of us don’t aspire to claw our way from the blogosphere into the “printosphere” and start making money at this. But those who succeed in doing so immediately feel the need to watch their words more carefully so as not to offend their paying audience. Hence they abandon their original calling. The Master has taught us to be like little children. He has taught us to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. There is no higher calling. Fellow bloggers: Let’s be satisfied with less so we can tell more. Last Tuesday, during the EU-US summit with President Bush, EU President José Barroso innocently asked for visa-free travel to the US for all European citizens. Barroso, of all people, ought to know the risk this would pose for the American people. Because the president of his neighbor country, socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, is behind an open border policy (see Part 2 of this report at Laigles Forum) that has even ranking EU officials feeling uneasy, and they’re saying so on the record. The strange thing is that, although this situation—the first test findings, one could call it—is hard evidence that supranational governments (like the North American Union dreamed of by our political elite) are impotent to defend their common border against terror when only one member country won’t comply, and this issue is central to the safety and security of every family in the US, our press doesn’t seem interested in having us know about Zapatero’s gross neglect and the European reaction to it. In fact, the European press itself has been rather silent on the issue, which has surfaced mostly on grassroots blogs there. This has everything to do with the fact that the far-left Zapatero has been busy sweeping the residues of his negligence under the carpet, even absurdly suggesting that the runaway illegal immigration into Spain is a EU problem rather than a Spanish one, despite the fact that the most lax immigration policy in Europe is being pursued in Spain, where illegals need only hide out for 2 years, then show up at the migra with a work contract, in order to become legal residents and enter the fast track to citizenship. And you thought our government was crazy. There are a lot of dots to connect here, and I am challenged not only to present the highlights but also connect some of them for the reader.  The clues about the supranationals and their agenda originated in three documents that recently came to my attention:            1—An article in the May 2006 issue of Whistleblower (a hardcopy publication of World Net Daily) entitled “The CFR Solution,” describing the Council on Foreign Relations’ May 2005 report “Building a North American Community,” which proposes melding the USA, Canada and Mexico into a supranational EU-style entity with one common border instead of the present three, presumably making this common border easier to defend, but without much explanation of how or why.            2—A report on the Spanish grassroots blog of May 2006 entitled Inmigración, Effecto llamada en España: problema para Europa, translated: Immigration, Call Effect in Spain: Problem for Europe, which, if you read it (our English translation, authorized by that group, will appear for the first time ever on Laigles Forum early next week and will then also become available in Europe on their site), will show you why the idea of a common border under the Schengen Agreement in Europe will not, and cannot work. And should show even diehard globalists why the Barroso visa-free travel idea is suicidal folly.          3—A report by renowned Brazilian academician Olavo de Carvalho, editor of the site Mídia Sem Máscara, who I believe in terms of his courage and the earnestness of his sense of historic mission, can justifiably be called the Solzhenitsyn of Brazil, if not of Latin America. This report, entitled Por trás da subversão (Behind the Subversion), provides further details supporting the Whistleblower report mentioned above, but goes further, establishing a link between the CFR and the American Left and a hard-to-ignore conspiratorial pattern of at least part of that agency. Our translation, authorized by the author, will appear early next week on Laigle’s Forum. The problem with these reports is, or has been:            1—Whistleblower is not available on most newsstands (though I firmly believe that any American who is not a subscriber is seriously under-informed).            2—The HazteOir.0rg report has been available only in Spanish heretofore (we’re changing that, see above). Thus, even in Europe, this report has targeted a limited audience.            3—Likewise, Mr. de Carvalho’s report has been available only in Portuguese (we’re changing that too. Stand by). Thus, far from being able to connect the dots, the average American reader has not even been privy to the dots themselves. The Spanish report does not consciously attempt to establish any thesis of the flawed nature of a supranational government. It doesn’t have to. It teaches by example.  The above-referenced May 2006 issue of Whistleblower does, but without mentioning the Spanish example, which is mostly known to Spanish-speaking blog readers and precious few Americans. Mr. de Carvalho’s article best establishes the link between the CFR and the Latin American Left, but not from the standpoint of illegal immigration. But may I now suggest that not only is the CFR the prime mover in the de facto open-border policy pursued by America’s elite, but that the group is also behind this administration’s push for a North American Union and that the open-border policy is part of that push. May I suggest that not only is there an international push on the part of the Left and their—in part unwitting—allies in the CFR that tends to keep our borders open and permeable but that there is a European link as well. And, wittingly or unwittingly, ranking EU members, notably EU President Barroso, are an important part of ultimately making America more vulnerable to unwanted trespass, almost certainly including terrorists. Is this a conspiracy?  Can a monky accidentally play the Moonlight Sonata on the keyboard? And here’s the bad news: While the CFR and its loyal followers in the Senate and White House advocate a supranational entity that would ultimately subjugate the US to the will of countries whose values we absolutely do not share, and should not share (Canada and Mexico), the EU, which has already bought into the globalist lie that sharing borders with one’s “continent mates” would inevitably lead to more safety and security for its members, wants us to share in its lofty ideal, an ideal whose embodiment is failing in Europe. So unsuspecting Americans face not only the threat of a supranational government foisted upon them by the CFR and its allies, but also the additional, possibly more formidable, threat of another supranational entity, the EU emulated by its elite, invading our shores with hordes of Europeans in name only (EINOs)! 

What almost no one will admit, on either side of the Atlantic, is that a rogue state like Spain, with borders open to terror-exporting countries like Morocco, for example, already endanger the rest of the EU members by encouraging illegal immigration through the so-called “call effect” (as explained in the soon-to-appear translation of the report). (An extremely small number of European sites are carrying any news of this, although a search of the term “call effect” and its equivalents in French (effet appel), German (Ruf-Effekt) and Italian (effetto chiamata), for example, will bring up a handful of sites for each, mostly reports on the phenomenon as it relates to Spain.)

 And thanks to the Schengen Agreement, which effectively eliminates borders around each member state, any terrorist who leaks through the wide-open border of Spain will no doubt eventually head for another member state. This is because, for the moment, Zapatero has made Spain quasi terror-proof by siding with terror, pulling out of the US-led coalition in Iraq, and also precisely through the terror-friendly immigration policy we are discussing here. So not only has the concept of shared borders in the EU in fact endangered the memers, who signed on partly because they naively believed there was strength in numbers, but the EU, led by a Spaniard close to Zapatero, now wants to export its failed “openness” policy to the US with its idea of visa-free travel for Europeans. Let’s be clear: under Zapatero’s new “Reglamento de Extranjería” in Spain, an analog of the US Senate’s “immigration reform” lunacy, a European is no longer a European but rather anyone whom leftist rogue nation Spain deems a European.  The newly certified “Europeans” –mostly from Muslim countries, would then be eligible for travel to our shores where we would be powerless to stop them. And remember the mantra of the open-border elite during the last immigration debate: we can’t send that many people back. Does anyone still have any illusions about this no-visa idea? Of course, I could just be making this up. I mean, I did a search on the sites of the New York Times and the Washington Post archives and did not bring up a mention of the “call effect” that is now a buzz word all over Europe (despite media attempts to spike the story). De Carvalho mentions a similar chilling blackout perpetrated by prominent CFR members commenting on the far-left São Paulo Forum where leftwing politicians met (and meet) with drug kingpins (and find they have a lot in common). When queried about the Forum, the president of the CFR, historian Kenneth Maxwell, denied that it even ever existed! If you care about the future of our country, and/or your curiosity is piqued, stop by Laigle’s Forum in a day or two (Monday at the latest) and read the translations of these remarkable articles, whose content you are not supposed to know anything about.  Unlike these authors, however, I make no bones about this: there is an international conspiracy to endanger the US by opening our borders, by eliminating visa requirements for “Europeans,” and eventually by creating a supranational government, the North American Union. In the broadest terms, the conspirators are the usual suspects: powerful activists of the Left, and in this country, that includes operatives on both sides of the aisle whose lofty idealism completely clouds their minds. American politicians, concerned only about votes and job security, are more than willing to sign on to the potentially lethal agenda. But here’s the good news: once we can identify the activists, behind their masks, maybe we have a fighting chance of defeating their dangerous agenda.
Stay tuned.

What you can do now:
As part of the grassroots, you can write your senator, your congressman and the President and tell him you do not support visa-free travel to the US. Tell him/her that this is partly because some nations in Europe, like Spain and Italy, have irresponsible immigration policies that can transform a Muslim terrorist from North Africa, for example, into a “European” in just a few short years. Millions are already on the fast track. Send him a link to this article or, better, a complete copy.
Tell your friends as well. Have them come and check us out, leave comments, support the anti-supranational movement.
It is really important that we retain our national character, our own laws, our own country and culture, and especially, our precious sovereignty, without which we are, well…Europeans.

NY Investigates Skating Rink for Playing Christian Music


June 21, 2006 – Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition asked New York Governor George Pataki to rein in a state agency which is threatening legal action against an Accord, New York skating rink because it plays Christian music during a “Christian Music Skate” party.

The New York Division of Human Rights threatened Len and Terry Bernardo, owners of the Skate Time 209 rink in Accord, with an investigation because the rink plays Christian music during certain hours. The agency also threatened to charge a local newspaper which advertised the event for “aiding and abetting” unlawful discrimination.

“This is crazy,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “These people are exercising basic Constitutional rights on private property to the exclusion of no one and the state government is treating them like dangerous criminals.

“Aiding and abetting? It is the responsibility of every citizen to aid and abet the free exercise of religion, free speech, the right to assemble and private property rights.

“New Yorkers have never been intimidated by international thugs and terrorists and they should not tolerate this bureaucratic attempt to violate their most basic civil rights.

“I have asked Governor Pataki to take authority over this illegal attempt to manipulate the law to accomplish a violation of basic civil rights. I will be watching closely to see that the Bernardos’ rights are protected.”

June 21, 2006

Transmitted by Fax

Governor George E. Pataki
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Pataki:

I was shocked to learn that a business operated by supporters of our Coalition has been threatened with legal action by the State of New York Executive Department, Division of Human Rights for holding a “Christian Music Skate” party at a private roller rink they operate in Accord, New York.

Sir, I cannot believe that any reasonable person would feel that the mere act of playing Christian music during certain hours when the Skate Time 209 skating rink is open for business amounts to some form of discrimination.

The section of the New York State law cited by Division of Human Rights General Counsel Gina M. Lopez Summa deals with those who “refuse, withhold from or deny” access to someone.

The rink’s proprietors Len and Terry Bernardo assure me that no one has ever been denied entrance to their privately-owned skating rink nor have they discouraged anyone from patronizing their rink because of their religious beliefs.

The only difference between the Christian Music Skate Time and all other times at the rink is that the former involves the playing of Christian contemporary music. There are no special discounts for Christian skaters and no one is denied access to the rink if they are not Christian.

Governor, please take action immediately to halt this action against the Bernardo’s and to reassure all New Yorkers that their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs and other rights related to private property and the right to assemble are not in jeopardy.

New Yorkers have demonstrated such courage and tenacity in dealing with international threats to their freedom. There is a reason why the amendment which guaranteed religious liberty and freedom of expression was the First Amendment.

Please halt this harassment immediately.

Rev. Louis Sheldon


When Character Matters


By Robert Knight

Jun 21, 2006

Did you know that former District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry is an alternate member of the same Metro transit board from which Maryland Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. fired Robert J. Smith recently for telling the truth about homosexuality—that it is deviant behavior?

Did you know that Mr. Barry, who is a sitting D.C. Council member, was sentenced to three years of probation on March 9, 2006, for evading payment of federal and local taxes? Did you know that Mr. Barry failed a court-ordered drug test for cocaine and marijuana last fall? Do you recall Mr. Barry’s videotaped comments when busted by federal agents in 1990 for using cocaine with a prostitute in a hotel room? “The !@#$ set me up!”

Mr. Barry is a member in good standing on the Metro transit authority board. Mr. Smith, who has had no such colorful run-ins with the law and merely stated the obvious without any rancor toward homosexuals, was summarily thrown off the board.

What’s wrong with this picture?

If you’re a liberal, there’s nothing wrong with it. You believe in imposing the extremely narrow civic religion of sexual anarchy. But if you’re just a citizen wondering why it’s difficult to recruit good people to take public jobs, it might help explain their reluctance.

I’m not bringing up Mr. Barry’s brushes with public humiliation in order to smack him one more time. Mr. Barry says he is a Christian and a sinner who is trying to overcome sinful urges and sometimes fails to do so. Since no one is perfect, and no one knows the human heart except for oneself and God, we must take him at his word and wish him the best. This does not mean that one’s conduct is irrelevant to one’s suitability for certain posts, however. Character matters.

So what are we to make of Gov. Ehrlich’s treatment of Mr. Smith? By all accounts, Mr. Smith was a hardworking, honest and outstanding member of the Metro board. His remarks came on a cable television program unrelated to his work on the board, and they were in response to Mary Cheney’s assertions in her new book Now It’s My Turn, that a federal marriage amendment would amount to “writing discrimination into the Constitution.”

Another speaker on the program said that Ms. Cheney would not want the government “interfering with her life,” according to the Washington Post, which noted that Mr. Smith then interjected: “That’s fine, that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy.”

In other words, no special claims or rights should be accorded based on someone’s peculiar sexual activities.

Four hours after fellow Metro board member Jim Graham, a homosexual activist, complained about Mr. Smith, Gov. Ehrlich dismissed Mr. Smith from the board.

Unlike other public officials who have been cowed into toeing the line drawn by homosexual activists, Mr. Smith is unbowed. He says his Roman Catholic faith makes it clear that homosexuality is “deviant,” as he told the Washington Post after the board meeting.

Perhaps the difference in outcomes here is that Mr. Barry has apologized for his behavior, while Mr. Smith will not. Of course, Mr. Smith, unlike Mr. Barry, has nothing to apologize for. Homosexuality, which surveys show afflicts less than two percent of the population, is clearly “deviant” behavior, no matter what else you might think of it. It’s not scientifically proven to be genetic, and it is preventable and treatable, facts that the cultural elites are working hard to conceal.

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, the adjective deviant means “deviating from what is accepted as normal or usual.” As a noun, a deviant is defined as “a person who deviates from accepted standards in his beliefs or behavior.”

By using the term deviancy, Mr. Smith was clearly addressing behavior and stating the traditional viewpoint that is found in the Bible, the Catholic Catechism and is espoused by every major religion. The Catholic Catechism, by the way, is actually tougher on homosexuality than Mr. Smith was.

Here’s what it says in Article 6, Section II, Subsection 2357:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law.

Mr. Smith’s term, deviancy, is a bit more subtle than depravity, but it doesn’t really matter. If you reflect anything less than outright capitulation to sexual license, you’re a bigot.

At some point, Americans are going to ask themselves, how did it come to this: that a good man who speaks the truth is thrown out of a job, while people who abuse drugs and promote sexual anarchy are considered model citizens? Is this now the American Way? If so, the criminalization of Christianity is not far off.

What Mr. Ehrlich did is not only morally wrong but bad politically. He is not likely to gain any support from Maryland’s homosexual activists, and he has risked alienating many of the Free State’s Catholics and other Christians. As long as he is in the firing mood, Mr. Ehrlich might now want to consider terminating the advisers who told him it would be a good idea to throw Mr. Smith to the sharks.  

It’s probably too late for the governor to reinstate Mr. Smith since he quickly filled the position with another appointee. But Mr. Ehrlich could apologize to Mr. Smith and appoint him to a similarly responsible position.  

What he does now or does not do will tell us more about the character of Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. than that of Robert J. Smith.

The latter gentleman has already established his credentials as a man, a devout churchman and as a freedom-loving American.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

Copyright © 2006

Find this story at:

Heterosexuals Victimized by Homosexuals

By Regina Griggs, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX )

Heterophobia is on the rise —  just witness the latest episode by
homosexual D.C. council member Jim Graham.  Last week Washington Metro
board director and practicing Catholic Robert J. Smith appeared on a
local cable show as the Republican pointman to discuss gay marriage. 
Smith commented that as a Roman Catholic he believed homosexual behavior
to be “deviant” in comparison to heterosexual behavior. 

“As an openly gay elected official,” Graham demanded Smith’s resignation
from the transit authority board.  Smith refused, explaining that his
remarks had nothing to do with his job and were made in public outside
of his job.  He also reiterated his support for Metro’s
non-discrimination policy and his respect for differing views on
homosexuality.  Nonetheless, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. bowed
to Graham and fired Smith because the governor wants “inclusiveness” and

In the past, Graham has made intolerant and non-inclusive comments about
ex-gays and Catholics, yet unlike Smith, Graham still has his job.  For
example, in 2003, when he was a chair of the Metro Board, Graham
remarked that he found PFOX’s subway advertisements urging tolerance for
ex-gays to be “offensive” and  “deplorable.”  What if those same remarks
had been made about gays?  Do you think Graham would still have his job?

To ensure that PFOX’s ex-gay ads would no longer appear in the subway
systems of our nation’s capitol, Graham and the Metro Board eliminated
free non-profit ad space which had enabled PFOX and other non-profits to
place ads.  Nonetheless, Graham proposed an amendment to extend the
deadline for free ad space so that two gay activist organizations could
take advantage of the free space. 

In addition to his anti-ex-gay comments, Jim Graham has also made
anti-Catholic remarks in his official role as a D.C. councilmember.  In
2000, when the D.C. City Council rejected a “conscience clause” to
exempt Catholic organizations from being forced to purchase health
insurance employee plans that covered artificial birth control, Graham
lashed out at the Pope and the Washington Archdiocese for practicing the
Catholic religion. 

In a now infamous session of the D.C. council meeting, Graham remarked
that he had “spent years fighting church dogma” and reportedly called
the Roman Catholic church a “homophobic church.”  Catholic Bishop
William Lori said he viewed the session as “evidence of anti-Catholic

We know we’re in trouble when homosexual politicians advocate tolerance
and inclusion for their own but cannot respect the views of
heterosexuals.  Let’s remember that heterosexuals, including ex-gays,
are also worthy of respect.

This column can be found online at:

Copyright 2006 PFOX   This article may be reproduced in its
entirety without alteration.
Regina Griggs is Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays &
Gays (PFOX), a non-profit organization serving families and the ex-gay
community.  Mrs. Griggs has been interviewed by numerous television,
radio and print outlets, including TIME Magazine, the Los Angeles Times,
The Washington Post, and the Washington Times.  Media contact: 
703-360-2225 or


– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
To subscribe to this email list of ex-gay news and views, send a blank email to: ________________________________
Click on the link below to make a tax-deductible secure online credit card donation to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays:
and click on the Donate button on the left side

Or send your tax-deductible gift today to:
PFOX, Box 561, Fort Belvoir VA  22060

All donors will receive a subscription to the PFOX Press Newsletter by mail. 

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to:

For Topica’s complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established National Religion

By Thomas Brewton

Federal education funding to teach socialism amounts to establishing the secular religion of socialism as the official national church.


The following letter was mailed to Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas:

Dear Mr. Chief Justice:

This letter is in regard to the Court’s recent decision in the Washington State religious scholarship case. The purpose is not to disagree specifically with the Court’s decision, but to question what constitutes a religion, the establishment of which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

It can be demonstrated that secular and materialistic socialism is a religion. That being the case, any use of Federal funds by public schools and universities for the teaching of socialistic doctrine constitutes a prohibited establishment of a specific religion.

That socialism is a religion:

Socialism’s codifier, Henri de Saint-Simon, himself called socialism a religion. His last major work was entitled The New Christianity. Saint-Simon said that the highest socialistic regulatory council should control education so that nothing but the catechism of social justice might be taught (e.g., Darwinian evolution, multiculturalism, Keynesian economics, deconstruction, legal realism, and critical studies).

Saint-Simon’s more famous colleague Auguste Comte went so far as to create The Religion of Humanity as part of his materialistic philosophy of Positivism.

Comte’s Religion of Humanity was approvingly cited by John Stuart Mill in his Chapters on Socialism, in which he mused that the educational system should be changed to indoctrinate the people with the principles of socialism.

The late Bertrand Russell, one of the world’s most prominent spokesmen for socialism, said of the World War I German socialist party, “For Social Democracy is not a mere political party, nor even a mere economic theory; it is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic. To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness.” (from Lecture One, German Social Democracy).

Irving Howe was, as you know, a leading New York socialist intellectual after World War II, as well as the founding editor of Dissent magazine. In A Margin of Hope: An Intellectual Autobiography, he wrote, “Call it liberal, call it social democratic, a politics devoted to incremental reform even while still claiming a utopian vision, how can such a politics satisfy that part of our imagination still hungering for religious exaltation, still drawn to gestures of heroic violence, still open to the temptations of the apocalypse? Perhaps it was recognition of this fact that led the leadership of the European social democracy in the years just before the First World War to maintain some of the “revolutionary” symbols and language of early Marxism, though their parties had ceased to be revolutionary in any serious respect. Intuitively they grasped that the parties they led were not just political movements but, in some sense, branches of a “church” “

In A Yippie Manifesto, published in May 1969, Jerry Rubin wrote, “America and the West suffer from a great spiritual crisis. And so the yippies are a revolutionary religious movement.A religious-political movement is concerned with peoples souls, with the creation of a magic world which we make real.We offer: sex, drugs, rebellion, heroism, brotherhood. They offer: responsibility, fear, puritanism, repression.”

To round out the liberals’ own characterization of socialism as a religion, start by comparing the similarities in structure between socialism and Christianity. Each has a theory about human nature that prescribes conditions of daily life and holds forth a promise of future redemption for all of humanity, a vision of future perfection that becomes a controlling factor in the daily lives of Christians and socialists. Christians look to salvation and life after death. Liberal-socialists look to The Religion of Humanity’s promise of perfection of man and society, here on earth, by means of materialistic structures planned and administered by intellectuals.

For liberals, there being no God, the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority is the ever-changing ideas of social justice in the minds of intellectuals. Applying that view to our Constitution is the process of judicial activism.

Christianity, like it or not, was the sole unifying structure of Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. For the Judeo-Christian tradition, Original Sin was humans over-reaching to become God-like by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. The message was that humans are God’s creatures and must obey God’s Will. Neither Salvation, return to the Garden of Eden, nor eternal bliss, is possible within this world.

Socialism exhibits all the same elements: a Garden of Eden (the State of Nature), original sin, and a promise of salvation revealed in sacred texts delivered by revered prophets. For socialists, Original Sin was the invention of private property and the resulting scramble of individuals to amass property, which introduced greed, avarice, aggression, crime, and wars. But unlike Christianity, socialist salvation is attainable without divine intervention, through the political state, by future generations here on earth.

Socialist salvation, however, is not an individual matter. It applies to the collective masses, in which individuals have no political significance beyond their class identity. Be it noted that our nation was incontrovertibly founded on principles of individualism, not secular and materialistic collectivism.

To be considered true religions, doctrinal beliefs must achieve multi-national and cross-cultural acceptance. Socialism clearly qualifies, having spread from Western Europe to all parts of the world. It has been adopted by countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Far East, including three of the most populous nations in the world: Russia, India, and China. Great religions commonly are associated with the lives and teachings of larger-than-life individuals such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed. Socialism qualifies in that respect also. Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and Charles Darwin delivered their revelations of materialistic Truth in the first sixty years of the 1800s.

Marx has become a mythical, god-like figure to billions of people around the world. American school children are taught that Darwin was the embodiment of science and truth, despite the fact that there exists not a single proof of his speculative theory (see Cal-Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and Gertrude Himmelfarb’s Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution). Thomas Huxley and American socialists like John Dewey used Darwinian evolution theory as a battering ram against morality and spiritual religions, particularly Christianity.

John Adams said that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, self-constrained by individual morality; that it would work for no other. Darwin’s “bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, said that there is no such thing as sin, merely the struggle for survival. Dewey taught that there is no morality, because material conditions are the sole source of human nature, and those conditions change continually in Darwinian fashion. Their fellow socialists Hitler and Stalin found nothing to quibble about in those doctrines.

The prophets of the socialist religion proclaimed that human nature could be returned to its State-of-Nature benevolence by the abolition of private property. Political societies, indeed all of humanity, could be perfected here on earth by restructuring government to place it in the hands of intellectual planners. The state-planner, the minister of socialist religion, sees himself as a modern-day Moses uniquely qualified by his knowledge about the so-called Immutable Law of History to guide humanity to earthly perfection, back to the Original State of Nature.

That the secular and materialistic religion of liberalism (the American sect of the international religion of socialism) is antithetical to and wholly incompatible with the fundamental principles of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution; proselytizing with Federal funds for the religion of socialism is therefore unconstitutional:

The American War of Independence was based philosophically upon John Locke’s Second Treatise, which was founded entirely in natural law. The legitimization for both the ouster of James II and George III was that each had broken the natural-law compact that postulated inalienable, individual natural-law rights to life, liberty, and property. “No taxation without representation.”

Jefferson’s references in the Declaration to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” are meaningless except in the context of natural law. Ditto with regard to the Bill of Rights.

Natural law, since Aristotle, has been identified with the teleological, intelligent-design paradigm of the cosmos. Aristotle’s natural law, via Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, opened the field of European medieval law to the concept of separation of church and state into political and spiritual realms. One dealt with making people good citizens, the other with making people good humans. Both were rooted in natural law, and natural law was God-given. This was the entire foundation of everything that we now call Western civilization.

Everyone from Franklin to Washington continually invoked the Deity’s blessings for the success of the American cause of independence, and later the Constitution. But American liberal-socialism demands that only the secular doctrine of socialism and Comte’s Positivism be taught in our schools. Because of support from our Federal courts, socialism has been established as the only scientific truth. The natural-law, spiritual-religion foundation of our nation has been dismissed as ignorance from a pre-scientific age. If that position holds, then the Declaration and the Constitution are meaningless drivel that “evolves” in Darwinian evolutionary fashion, subject only to random, chaotic materialistic forces.

As our first socialist Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, repeatedly wrote, there is no such thing as a higher law of morality, merely whatever a particular judge thinks that the law ought to be. As you know, Holmes opined that, if secular materialism changed public opinion to the belief that we should scrap the Constitution and institute Bolshevism, then neither the Court not the Constitution should stand in the way. That contempt for tradition and precedent, for the entirety of Western civilization, has, too often since the 1920s, informed Federal judicial practice, making the Constitution into a Rorschach ink-blot.

The materialistic and secular doctrine of socialism, pushed by the ACLU (e.g., the Scopes monkey trial), liberal-socialist politicians, and the teachers’ unions, in effect decapitates Western civilization. We see this daily in denigration of subject matter produced by “dead white men” and John Dewey’s maxim that “dead” history has no place in the Progressive Education curriculum. William F. Buckley, Jr., documented it in his 1951 God and Man at Yale, and Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate have updated it in The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses.

Saint-Simon and John Dewey were correct in perceiving that control of education is the most effective way to destroy the essence of Western civilization and replace it with the secular and materialistic religion of socialism. We may hope that education will be rebalanced to require fair presentation of the doctrinal foundations of our Constitution, as well as the dogma of liberal-socialism.

May we hope that the Federal judiciary will abandon its suicide pact with the liberal-socialists?


Thomas E. Brewton

HIstory Lesson


by Erik Rush


I was asked by a local Republican organization to speak on the morning of Juneteenth (that being the anniversary of June 19, 1865, the date that news of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln reached the last slaves in Galveston, Texas. This date continues to be celebrated in many black communities. Although I regularly take to task RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), GOP hypocrites, sellouts and other invertebrates, politically-active Republicans in my area – particularly the group that asked me to speak – and I are pretty much on the same page most of the time. Being one of the more prominent (if not the most, all humility aside) Black conservatives in the area made me a reasonable choice, I suppose. The group was also gearing up for the 150th anniversary of the first Republican National Convention, which was held on June 17, 1856.


There are a couple of interesting facts I’d like to bring to the fore in light of all this: One, I wound up learning some interesting and encouraging things about the GOP during my research, some of which served to further galvanize my loyalty to the party – and its need to remain as committed to conservatism as possible.


Two: I had never even heard of Juneteenth until 1992, six years after I escaped New York and relocated to Colorado. Now, this could be because New York’s elitist leanings (which to be fair, cross political lines) cause it to be something of a cultural bubble (or vacuum). Most New Yorkers tend to be very disconnected from events that occur outside of the metropolitan New York area. The conspiracy theorist in me would like to believe that the liberal elites deliberately left Juneteenth out of their “reality” and its significance to school children in order to keep Black people under the impression that they were still enslaved. This makes sense in light of the Left’s class envy and dependency agenda, but I won’t belabor that here; they’re obviously not above such action. I don’t consider bashing Democrats to be one of my favorite hobbies, but I do consider doing my part to neutralize the far Left as a moral obligation.


I get a lot of email from angry Democrats, and they’re not usually angry because of something I’ve written. Often, they’re in agreement with me and irate over the fact that the far Left has hijacked their party in a major way. “I’m so damn mad I just don’t know what to do,” some say.


“Switch parties?” I suggest.


Apropos the aforementioned hijacking, this took place over approximately the same time period during which the Democrat Party began cozying up to Blacks. I’d wager most Americans don’t know that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.


I wrote in a column entitled “Black Noise” in December of 2005: “Throughout the first half of the 20th century, one political party had a reputation as being possessed of an imperious mien, and this was the Democrat Party. It was also widely known as the party of segregation… Riding on the coattails of the affinity Blacks had for Jack and Bobby Kennedy (who were perceived as champions of civil rights), Democrats courted Blacks via corruption of their clergy. Blacks had been among the most socially conservative groups in America, and their leaders, rather than political icons, had been their clergymen. Thus, the ranks of Black leadership emerged from within this body, which was won over either through altruistic con jobs or the promise of personal aggrandizement. Those who gained fame became embroiled in the political machinery: blinded by greed and self-importance, they were groomed as foremen for the White international socialist overseers in the Democrat Party.”


What I hadn’t realized until I began my research for my speech was the degree to which the Republican Party had been dedicatedly involved in civil rights reforms 100 years before the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, it’s true that there were economic and other social factors that led to the Civil War; it wasn’t all about slavery (a point the Left makes at every opportunity given that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican), but quite a number of historical facts regarding the GOP reveal that it has always been the real “party of the American people”, as well as standing for the equality of all Americans.


[Thanks for the historical notations here are appropriate for Author Michael Zak, executive director of the Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation and author of the book “Back to Basics for the Republican Party.”]

  • In March of 1854, several dozen anti-slavery activists met in Wisconsin and called for a new political party, the Republican Party – to stop the Democrat’s pro-slavery agenda.

  • In July of 1854, in Jackson, Michigan, the first Republican Party state convention of 10,000 anti-slavery activists was held in “The Oaks”. Among the leaders of that meeting was a former mayor of Detroit, Zachariah Chandler, who had protected slaves escaping North in the underground railroad. Chandler would later serve in the US Senate and as chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

  • In February of 1856, delegates established the Republican National Committee and elected New York’s national committeeman, Edwin Morgan, to be the first chairman of the RNC. Morgan had been governor and would later serve in the U.S. Senate where he helped pass several major civil rights laws.

  • In 1856, the first Republican Party presidential nominee, a Georgia-born military hero and former senator from California, John C. Fremont, ran on an anti-slavery platform but lost the election to the pro-slavery Democrat, James Buchanan.

  • In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the first Republican Party president of the United States of America and took office in 1861.

Whilst attending elementary school in New York, I wondered why the majority of Black students spoke with thick southern accents. This – although I couldn’t know it at the time – was because public assistance was more plentiful and easier to obtain in the more liberal, northern states. These were among the “worldly goodies” that Democrats used to court Black voters – and keep them in a perpetual state of cultural slavery, a condition from which millions of Blacks suffer to this day, many quite willingly, and in which far Left politicos (both Black and White) struggle violently to keep them.


So while Republicans across America celebrate the party’s 150th anniversary, let us recall history and remember that despite our occasional frustration and the fallibility of individuals, the GOP is still the best hope for America given this critical juncture in American history.


Discuss This Article


Erik Rush is a New York-born Black columnist and author who writes a weekly column of political fare. He is also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. An archive containing links to his writing is at . His new book, “It’s the Devil, Stupid!” is ON SALE NOW!!!


Militant Mob of Homosexuals Targets Repent America

 P.O. Box 30000, Philadelphia, PA  19103                    1-800-3-REPENT

Repent America Update 6/18/06

By Michael Marcavage


PHILADELPHIA – Repent America continues to endure the lawless behavior of a militant mob of homosexuals identifying themselves as “Anti-Racist Action”. This disorderly group, which has caused disturbances outside the homes of those who work with RA by screaming profanities and threatening violence, has vowed to escalate their harassment and disorderly behavior.

On June 11, during Philly Pride’s annual homosexual pride parade and celebration, Philadelphia police allowed this militant mob to block, scream profanities, and make threats of physical harm while RA ministered in the public streets. Although Pennsylvania has laws against disorderly conduct and harassment, Philadelphia police, as at previous homosexual events, refused to enforce them, but instead, turned a blind eye.  Despite the unlawful behavior aimed at RA, the Word of God was still declared.  Click Here to watch sample video footage of the June 11 event.

You can help!  Please contact Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson’s office and ask that he no longer allow Repent America to be blocked and/or harassed by instructing his officers to enforce Pennsylvania’s harassment and stalking statute. You may do so by calling 215-686-3280, faxing 215-625-0612, or by writing: Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Philadelphia Police Department, One Franklin Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106



Repent America is an evangelistic ministry based in the birthplace of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


*to remove yourself from this list, please click here or visit

Parental Rights Activist David Parker’s Son Surrounded an Beaten up at School on Anniversary of Same-Sex “Marriage” in MA

Parental Rights Activist David Parker’s Son Surrounded and Beaten-up at School on Anniversary of Same-Sex “Marriage” in Massachusetts



June 14, 2006

MassResistance, Waltham, MA 
Brian Camenker
Phone: 781-890-6001 

School acknowledges that attack by group of kids was “planned and premeditated”

Caps year-long public campaign of anti-Parker hate by activists in town

LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS/JUNE 14, 2006/ MassResistance has learned that on May 17 – the two-year anniversary of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts – David Parker’s first-grade son, Jacob, was dragged and beaten at the Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington during recess, receiving multiple blows to the chest, stomach, and genital area.

Last year David Parker was arrested and made national news over the school’s refusal to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, then in kindergarten. The school system has continued to refuse to notify any parents. On April 27, 2006, Parker, his wife, and another family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the school system.

During the recess period, a group of 8-10 kids suddenly surrounded Jacob and grabbed him. He was taken around the corner of the school building out of sight of the patrolling aides, with the taunting and encouragement of other kids. Jacob was then positioned against the wall for what appeared to be a well planned and coordinated assault. Many children stood, watched silently, and did nothing as the beating commenced.

The group of kids surrounded Jacob and he was beaten and punched. Then, as he fell to the ground, another child was heard saying to the group of children, “Now you all can finish him off,” and as he was down on his hands and knees, the beating continued on his back. Then, fortunately, one little girl ran to contact the oblivious playground aides to stop it.

Four of the attackers were from Jacob’s first-grade class; the others were from other classes at Estabrook.

The teachers’ aide apparently determined that since she could not see external bleeding, and since Jacob apparently was not hit in the face, she did not send him to she school nurse. The Parkers were notified by the first-grade teacher within an hour of the incident.

School authorities told the Parkers that from their investigation they have determined that the beating was indeed planned and premeditated.

Safe schools? Tolerance? Diversity?

There can be no question that this beating has little to do with children. It was fueled and incited by adults (and, yes, school officials) in the town of Lexington. And it reflects the culture of extreme intolerance against anyone with traditional beliefs, and the willingness of adults to bring children into adult issues.

  • It cannot be accidental that this happened on May 17 – the two-year anniversary of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts – a day when emotions were particularly high among certain activists.
  • None of the kids involved were suspended from school. Instead, from what we are told, a “diversity” training session of sorts was held in the first-grade class. What if it had been a “gay” child who had been beaten, or even taunted? Across Massachusetts children are routinely suspended from school for even using the term “gay” in a less than positive fashion.
  • The Estabrook Elementary School library has continuously displayed two particular issues of the local Lexington Minuteman newspaper which depict David Parker in big articles on the front page on a prominent table where kids often go. Those two issues were still displayed after this latest incident. [See MassResistance picture.]
  • Estabrook Elementary School is proud of its long-time involvement in various “Safe School” programs that make the schools “safe” for homosexuality but dangerous for anyone with a different viewpoint. The current rage there is the “Open Circle” program, which has ties to GLSEN.
  • A group of adults in Lexington maintain and regularly update an angry anti-Parker website, In addition to angry anti-Parker diatribes, they meticulously catalog all anti-Parker letters to the editor, newspaper articles, etc. They also organize anti-Parker rallies and demonstrations, and go on TV and radio bashing Parker. The group is led by well-known lesbian activist Meg Soens, who was involved in the infamous GLSEN “Fistgate” conference in 2000. (Soens also runs a second pro-homosexual Lexington website, )
  • Adults in Lexington have conducted a nasty and hateful anti-Parker letter-writing campaign in the local newspaper, the Lexington Minuteman, that has lasted for well over a year.
  • The “Lexington Cares” group, and others, have recruited young children to participate in angry anti-David Parker public demonstrations. [See pictures below.]

Statement by David Parker:

“We understand that skirmishes happen on the playground. What concerns us greatly is the premeditated, well planned and coordinated nature of the assault.

“We are aware that the school administration sent notices home with all the young children concerning the Parker arrest, the “King and King” incident and the federal lawsuit. In addition, the school administration prominently displays the front-page Minuteman biased headlines of such incidents in the elementary school library for the children to see, read, and discuss. We also know that activist lesbian mothers and vehement anti-David Parker parents are spewing hateful, inflaming rhetoric to their young children. What kind of atmosphere are they creating? Are their children acting out their parents’ hate? Was this attack part of the “group think” that the pro-homosexual crowd espouses?

“Isn’t the school supposed to be addressing safety and preventing bullying and violence? Or are such programs only focused on children with homosexual parents? You can be certain that if this happened to a child with homosexual parents more would be made of this and that “lessons” teaching tolerance and diversity of homosexual behavior normalization would be forced upon the young children.”

Just waiting to happen.

This outrageous incident should not come as a surprise to anyone. The hatred and vituperative nature of the homosexual activists and their allies, both in the schools and in the community, toward anyone who does not agree with their agenda has been well documented. This also clearly demonstrates the complete ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy of the so-called “safe schools” programs, which cause far more problems than they solve. Unless things are forced to change, more innocent children will be at risk.

Calculated to incite? In this picture, taken June 2, 2006, in the Estabrook Elementary School library, these two back issues of the Lexington Minuteman are prominently placed on a table for children to look at.  The top newspaper has the headline “Curriculum controversy – Parents upset with ‘King & King’ and a color picture of the cover of the book. It also has the headline “Standing in Silent Support” and a big picture of students and adults supporting the pro-homosexual event “Day of Silence” in Lexington.  The bottom newspaper features the headline “Parents file federal suit” about David Parker and other Estabrook parents filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against Estabrook school officials, and others.



Children holding signs at anti-David Parker demonstration, September 2005. The kids’ signs have particularly insidious messages: “Support ALL Our Children, Families, Schools” and “Anyone Can Go to School.”  Note that these imply that David Parker does not support all children, and that he believes that not everyone can go to school. This is the angry mindset these people have, and they’re transmitting it to young children.



Entire families in Lexington holding signs at anti-David Parker rally, September 2005.  (This, and the picture above, was at a counter-demonstration called to coincide with an announced event supporting David Parker on the Lexington Battle Green.