Pro-Life Rally to Protest NEA’s “Pro-Choice” Policies

Statewide Email Network
PA Pro-life & Conservative Coalition – Website 
=>Subscribe by sending an email address to
==> Tell a friend. – Bill Depner, Acting Editor

Pregnant & scared? Suffering the pain of abortion? 1-800-395-HELP

i) Introductory Comments for Protest at NEA Meeting. Spread the word.
ii) Pro-Life Teachers to Protest NEA Meeting Over Abortion

i) Introductory Comments for Protest at NEA Meeting

Dear Face the Truth,

This is Katie Ostrom, and I am a pro-life activist.  I am sending this
urgent information to all pro-life people and groups I know, and I hope
you can send this to all local chapters of your organization>

There will be a national protest of the pro-abortion National Education
Association (NEA) that will occur at their convention this week,
starting Sunday July 1, at the Philadelphia Convention Center in

This is a VERY important event; hundreds of news media representatives
attend the NEA convention and the more pro-life protesters that
participate in this, the better chance the pro-life side could get some
news coverage.

Lifenews, an excellent on-line source, has already written an article
about this great pro-life event.   Maybe someone at Face the Truth
could also investigate and write an article about this, send through a
newsletter, or post something about this event on your website?

* Even if you or people from your group cannot attend this event in PA,
please read further *

(Pro-lifers in states nowhere near PA can protest the NEA at their
headquarters in each state)

The NEA has 3.2 million members in the USA, and hardly any of them know
that their beloved union is pro-abortion and votes to maintain their
pro-abortion policies at the annual convention.  Teachers should not
support abortion!>

  => The NEA adopted its pro-abortion Resolution I-13 on Family
Planning in 1985, amended it in 1986, and reaffirms it at the
convention each year:

“The NEA supports family planning, including the right to reproductive
freedom. The Association urges the government to give high priority to
making family planning available to women and men unable to take
advantage of private facilities. The Association further urges the use
of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will
provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.”

  => In 1990, the NEA delegates easily passed New Business Item 1990-65:

“The NEA will oppose any legislation which will erode the status of Roe
v. Wade and/or which impedes access to and choice of reproductive
health care options, by providing technical assistance to state

PLEASE, for the sake of the future of our society, I urge you to
contact Bob Pawson, the coordinator of this protest, and write your own
article encouraging pro-lifers, especially educators, across America to
participate in this pro-life opportunity, or at least spread awareness
of the NEA’s pro-abortion stance.

Bob Pawson, National Coordinator (609) 610-3522

Pro-Life Educators And Students (PLEASE)     
PO Box 2826
Hamilton Square, NJ 08690

 Until the public becomes aware, and forces the NEA to reverse their
pro-abortion policies or become abortion neutral, the NEA will continue
to give Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry a platform in
American public schools and universities.

Did you hear about the school field trip to Planned Parenthood that
happened in New Hampshire the other week?  They took 40 middle
schoolers to Planned Parenthood, without permission of any parents.
Also, I have heard they are handing out condoms in some middle schools
(instead of just high schools which is bad enough) and teaching
contraception-only sex education classes, without any mention of
abstinence.  Yuck!

 PLEASE, write your own article about this event and send information
about the NEA protest to all pro-life groups and individuals that you

Will you help make this pro-life event highly visible?

Please do everything you can to raise awareness of the pro-abortion NEA
policies during the rest of the year, even if you cannot promote the
protest at the NEA convention. Planned Parenthood has NO BUSINESS in
America’s schools!

Thank you for all you do to serve human life!  

Katie Ostrom    

ii) Pro-Life Teachers to Protest NEA Meeting Over Abortion

Philadelphia, PA ( – Pro-life advocates including
teachers, school officials and other educators will protest the
national conference of the National Education Association. They say
that the union group should not be spending time or money promoting
abortion or pro-abortion candidates who back a procedure that kills

Bob Pawson, who heads up Pro-Life Educators And Students is helping to
coordinate the protest and he spoke with about it.

“It is vital to focus nationwide attention on the pro-abortion activism
of this powerful union’s leaders,” he said, saying the NEA is supposed
to be “dedicated to protecting children, as well as teachers’ jobs.”

Pawson is a member of the NEA and its New Jersey affiliate and teaches
computer classes in the Trenton Public Schools.

He said the NEA doesn’t realize the loss of life resulting from the
more than 1.2 million abortions annually. That’s fewer classrooms of
children and few opportunities for teaching positions.

“Twenty-five abortions equal one lost classroom, one lost teaching
career, and a catastrophic loss to America’s future,” he said.

NEA officials did not respond to a request for comment from

The protests will begin on Sunday at the NEA conference in Philadelphia
at the Pennsylvania Convention Center and other pro-life advocates will
hold rallies at state capitols across the country to draw attention to
the NEA state affiliates.

About 10,000 teachers and delegates from all fifty states will attend
the NEA Convention.

Ironically, a recent vote by the Philadelphia city council to
officially endorse abortion has prompted dozens of local pro-life
advocates to assist in the protests.

“Although Council rescinded the label six days later, the original
decision irritated, motivated, and activated many Philadelphia
pro-lifers determined to refute and rebuke that obnoxious resolution,”
said Pawson.

Other pro-life organizations are assisting Pawson’s group in the
effort, including League of American Families and the Life Education
And Resources Network.

“We are taking to task the leadership of America’s largest and most
socio-politically meddlesome union, for essentially misrepresenting
many teachers on the abortion issue,” Pawson concluded.

“We teachers and school employees love children. It’s insane for our
union’s leadership to condone, much less promote, the killing of babies
in their mothers’ wombs,” he said.

For LOVE THEM BOTH talk show TV schedules & pregnancy helpline, click

Pennsylvania Pro-Life and Conservative Coalition
P.O Box 53
New Buffalo PA 17069

The New Christianity: Be Nice to the Left, Smear the Right

A while back I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column entitled “Say Something Nice,” relating to a campaign started by Mitch Carnell, a leader at the First Baptist Church in Charleston, SC, who wanted Christian groups to say nice things about each other.

In it I said that I was following Mitch’s idea to always say nice things about everyone, so when my young son asked me about Adolf Hitler, I said only nice things about him and as a result, my son now admires Hitler. (No relation with reality here).

Recently Mitch showed his true colors in a press release sent by email to members of Christian Newswire, in which he not only compares a woman with a Christ-killer for not dialoguing with him but in fact tells an unflattering story about his own father, at variance with the God’s 5th Commandment (while in the same article saying Christians must be respectful to one another). It seems this woman had asked him a rhetorical question in an email and when he tried to respond, she had blocked him.

He writes:

This blocking episode is much like the one described in John’s Gospel when Pilate asked Jesus, “What is Truth?” and then he did not wait for the answer. He went out to the people. He did not want to know the answer. “When I was a teenager my father would confront me about some breech of acceptable conduct with, “How could you do such a dumb thing?” Before I could answer he would throw up his hands and proclaim, “I don’t want to hear it.”

I wanted to find out if Mitch himself may no longer be taking emails because, unlike his first press release at Christian Newswire, this one did not contain his email address.

So I wrote him this email:

Hello Mitch,
This is Donald Hank, the guy who wrote the article “Say something nice” regarding your article in Christian Newswire and how my son was influenced indirectly by my adopting your say-something-nice approach.
I just wanted to know I saw your latest press release today.
I was surprised because your article sounded a little edgy. Have you decided to change your tack? It’s ok. We are only human.

Mitch did in fact respond:

Thanks. I wondered how it would be taken. I thought I was very nice.  Mitch

My response:

Hi Mitch,
Were you talking about your latest press release in which you accuse your own father of mental abuse and compare a lady with a Christ-killer for not wanting to dialogue with you?
But God doesn’t command us to be nice, so that isn’t the issue.
Stephen wasn’t stoned for being too nice, was he?
Jesus called publicans, Pharisees, etc, hypocrites right to their faces.
John the Baptist and Jesus both called their people a “generation of vipers.”
Early Christians, our models, weren’t nice. They were good. Those are opposites.
You have demonstrated that those who push for “niceness” are hypocrites, because the push for niceness is in itself a nasty frontal assault on orthodox Christians. You are asking them to be nice, but you have no intention of being nice to them.
Your movement is right in line with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary’s idea to silence the orthodox, but the tactic in the “niceness movement” seems to be a stealthy attempt to impose self censorship and end vital dialogue right now when it is needed most.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in a speech at Harvard that in the Soviet Union, they have state imposed censorship but in the US, we have self censorship of the press–he was referring to the phenomenon of political correctness, which didn’t have a name back then.
I haven’t made up my mind about you yet, but there are at least 2 possibilities, which I will list as nicely as I can:
1-You are pathologically naïve, like Jimmy Carter, or
2-You are a cunning “Christian” leftist who has a clear vision of a socialist world in which orthodox Christianity, the bedrock of the faith, melts away through infiltration (in other words, you pull, Pelosi-Hillary push, and you reach the goal of silencing dissent).
No, Mitch, that was not intended to be nice. It was intended to be kind.
Let’s be kind to the future generation and restore morality in this country. That is a far cry from saying nice things about the vipers that are trying to harm them with false doctrines.
In your response you can try to convince me that you are not one of those vipers.
Don Hank
Now, I had not checked into the background of Mitch Carnell until this point.

So on a hunch, I went to Google and did a search using the key word group: First Baptist Charleston Wallis.

I did this because I suspected that his church must have a close relationship with Jim Wallis, the arch bishop of “Christian” Leftism, who has nothing but praise for the party of partial birth abortion. Sure enough, one of the links brought me to an article in Wallis’ flagship site Sojourners, which touted an upcoming appearance of the well-known antagonist and subverter of Christian orthodoxy Tony Campolo at the First Baptist Church of Charleston.

“Campolo worries that conservatives such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have given Evangelicals a bad name” says the Sojourner article.

And further on: “Progressive Evangelicals simply have decided to stop talking about gay marriage, he [Campolo] said.”

As I was writing this, the following came in from Mitch himself, they guy who wants us not to discuss controversy:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. At the very least we have people talking [my emphasis]. I am happy to be put in the same class with President Carter and perhaps I am naive. I believe that Christ commanded us to love one another. “This is how you will know that they are mine and I am theirs that they love one another.” In order to share the gospel we must first be heard. I am happy that you want us to be kind. The kindest thing we can do is to win people to Christ. Because you and I may disagree with each other does not mean that either of us is wrong. It means that we have a different point of view.  Mitch

My response:

      Now I understand why people block you.
      You don’t pay any attention to what people say and don’t address their arguments.
      Did it ever occur to you that your dad may have been dead-on right about you?
I don’t know how much longer this dialogue will continue, but please note the contradictions:

Mitch indicates he is glad “we have people talking,” but his church supports leftist Tony Campolo, who clearly is happy when they don’t talk (“Progressive Evangelicals simply have decided to stop talking about gay marriage”) and he himself, in his “say-something-nice-Sunday” campaign, is asking people to voluntarily stop the opposition. Read: accept gay marriage, abortion, apostasy and moral relativism. In other words, shut up and let us liberals define your beliefs (I’m not exaggerating about the “shut up” part. Mitch’s web site contains a favorable book review of “For God’s Sake, Shut Up!”).

Thus the “Christian” Left slams orthodox Christians hard, saying they are giving Christianity a “bad name” and that they need to shut up. Yet they insist that we must say nice things about other Christians.

Cleary, for them, those other Christians are the Christian Left.

In other words, don’t worry about slandering the Christian right. We’ll do that for you. With a smile.

Donald Hank is a technical translator and staff writer for Laigle’s Forum.

Contact the author:


And Then They Came for Sean…

by Don Laigle

Back when the Philadelphia 11 were arrested, Sean Hannity and his fellow talk show hosts were strangely silent. They didn’t seem to be much upset about this.

Why worry about the rights of a few marignal street preachers? After all, they weren’t Billy Graham, and the press was ignoring the incident.

Yet, this was the first time in the history of our Republic that people had been arrested for expressing their religious beliefs. It was a colossal story, but it got buried. Sean was one of its pall bearers.

Around then, fellow broadcaster Howard Stern was being thrown off the air for his foul mouth and Sean waxed sympathetic, defending Stern’s “First Amendment rights.”

Was the Constitution written for the rich and famous, Sean? Can the poor and downtrodden fend for themselves while you bravely leap to the aid of a millionaire?

But when the Left was found to have targeted talk radio last week, threateining to revive the “fairness doctrine,” Fox News ran a Hannity and Colmes show entitled “Targeting Talk,” as if this were the first time the Left had threatened anyone’s free speech. The day before, Sean had spent hours ranting on this topic, saying this was an attack on “your freedom of speech.”

Somehow I don’t feel a bit threatened here, Sean. You see, I don’t have a radio show.

Back when my fellow Christians were threatened, freedom of speech was all about you. It still is.

This is your fight, Sean. If you had started it earlier, it might have been easier.  We’d have been glad to have you on board.

Maybe next time?

More Hypocrisy: How Mexico Handles its Own Illegal Immigration

May 18, 2006
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
More Hypocrisy: How Mexico Handles Its Own Illegal Immigration
How are Central Americans treated in Mexico? Just fine, according to President Vicente Fox,
“Every year more than 250,000 Central Americans cross the [Mexican] border. They are treated with respect, and are offered a better place to stay and new opportunities.” [Newsflash: HR4437 Rejected!—By Mexico’s Meddling Government]
But Jose Luis Soberanes, president of the CNDH (National Commission of Human Rights) doesn’t agree with Fox.
Soberanes has reported that Central American and even Mexican migrants in Mexico are subject to abuse at the hands of police and military personnel, and that immigrants are detained in municipal prisons.
According to Soberanes, “the Mexican government mistreats ‘indocumentados’ that cross its territory, it keeps them in jails, in overcrowded conditions, many times without food, without medical attention and overall, violating their human rights.”
Mauricio Farath, another CNDH official, reported that in some Mexican states, Central Americans “go to the municipal jails, where they stay for days and weeks. In some small rooms there are dozens of them and they do not separate the men and the women.” [CNDH: Aquí se criminaliza a los ilegales, Victor Ballinas Enviado, December 21st, 2005]
Later, Jose Luis Soberanes put it this way
“We demand that they [Americans] treat us well, and we are incapable of treating Central Americans well.”
[Exigimos que a nosotros nos traten bien, y somos incapaces de tratar bien a los centroamericanos.] (Presidente promete ‘pelear’ por los paisanos by Jose Luis Ruiz, Universal, March 29th, 2006)
In 2005, Mexico detained 240, 269 illegal aliens in its territory. Of that total, 42% were from Guatemala, 33% from Honduras, with most of the rest being from El Salvador.
All three of those countries are poorer than Mexico (more on that later).
I recall some years ago in the state of Quintana Roo in southeastern Mexico. There were quite a few Guatemalans on the bus I was traveling on. At a checkpoint, the Guatemalans were unceremoniously yanked off the bus and their papers rifled through. It seemed like an everyday occurrence.
Mexico is certainly within its rights to control its own immigration policy. Mexico has the right to detain and deport illegal aliens. (For that matter, Mexico has the right to expel legal aliens if it so desires).
According to Mexico’s Ley General de Población, Article 123, illegal aliens can be fined and sentenced to up to two years in prison.
“Se impondrá pena hasta de dos años de prisión y multa de trescientos y cinco mil pesos, al extranjero que se interne ilegalmente al pais. “
Usually though, they’re just deported, as Article 125 allows. [PDF]
The Mexican immigration agency is the INM—Instituto Nacional de Migracion). But it is not the only agency that enforces immigration law. The Mexican military helps. And so do local Mexican police. In fact, by law, all Mexican police, regardless of unit or level, are required to enforce immigration law. 
(On that point, we could surely learn from Mexico).
Enforcing the law is one thing, abuse of authority is another. And that’s what frequently happens to Central Americans in Mexico. The illegal aliens are victims of both corrupt authorities and private criminals. Corrupt officials often shake them down for bribes. Some are robbed, raped or even murdered. Not much is done about it.
In a recent AP piece Mark Stevenson reports that
“Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.” [Few Protections for Migrants to Mexico, AP April 19th, 2006]
Most illegal Central Americans enter Mexico to pass through to the United States. But some stay and seek work in Mexico. Some Mexican employers now prefer Guatemalans to Mexican workers. (Guatemalans doing work Mexicans won’t do?)
Just to put things in perspective, consider the economic differences between Mexico and most of her Central American neighbors.
Mexico’s GDP per capita is $10,100 (higher than the world average of $9,300.) Here, in descending order, is the GDP per capita of each Central American nation:
Costa Rica $10,100 , Belize $6,800 Guatemala $5,200, El Salvador $5,100,
Honduras $ 2,800, Nicaragua $2,400
As you can see, except for Costa Rica, which ties with Mexico, all the others have a lower GDP per capita than Mexico.
Another useful socioeconomic barometer is the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) which takes into account life expectancy, education and adjusted real income. The list goes from #1 Norway to #177 Niger, the U.S. is #10. Mexico comes in at #53 (a better score than some eastern European countries).
Mexico’s Central American neighbors, with one exception, have worse HDI scores than Mexico: Panama (56), Belize (91), El Salvador (104), Honduras (116), Guatemala (117).
Among Central American nations, only Costa Rica, at #47, scores higher.
(Isabel Lyman is a VDARE.COM friend and home school activist and her parents came from Costa Rica).
So with the exception of Costa Rica, all the Central American nations are poorer than Mexico.
There are even illegal alien flows between the Central American nations. Costa Rica has its own illegal immigration problem with illegal aliens from Nicaragua. And when I visited Belize, I met an illegal alien from El Salvador.
We always hear how Mexico is poorer than the U.S: Well, most Central American countries are poorer than Mexico. It doesn’t stop Mexican authorities from detaining and deporting their citizens, does it?
What about profiling? Recently near Mexico City, police shot Mexican construction worker Robert Lugo. Because Lugo had dark skin and work clothes, the police mistook him for a Central American. (Mexican police kill man in illegals raid WorldNetDaily, April 19th, 2006
Several years ago, I wrote a VDARE.COM article about seven Mexican Indians who were mistaken for Guatemalans, imprisoned for 10 days, and almost deported to Guatemala.
Illegal alien stories regularly appear in the Mexican media. Here are a few recent ones:
In Chiapas a few months back, local police were chasing Guatemalan illegal aliens. They shot an illegal and his Mexican smuggler (both lived). Fifteen illegal aliens were detained. [Balean policies a inmigrantes guatemaltecos Siglo, Feb. 13th, 2006]
In a tragic accident in April, 80-85 Central American illegal aliens were riding in a truck which crashed into a trailer (both drivers and some of the illegals fled the scene). Known casualties: 9 of the illegal aliens died, 16 were wounded. [Mueren nueve indocumentados en acidente en Chiapas, 26 April 2006, Universal]
A 15 year old illegal immigrant girl from El Salvador arrived to a Mexican metropolitan area and wound up working as a prostitute. Her pimps kept control of her by threatening to report her illegal status if she didn’t do what they said. Finally, she was fed up with her harsh treatment and sexual abuse. She escaped and turned herself into immigration authorities. The immigration authorities imprisoned her, incommunicado, in a cell in the basement of a government building, with a man as her roommate. The press didn’t discover it for two months. [Siglo – Mantienen incomunicada a una salvadoreña By Luis Alberto Morales Cortés, April 30th, 2006]
Now this ought to win some kind of award for sheer chutzpah: Bush, Fox and Canada’s Harper recently met at a summit in Cancun.
Fox was both agitating for Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S. and boasting about fighting illegal immigration in Mexico:
“On our southern border, we are very active in patrolling, in construction of [immigration] stations, to stop the illegal migrants that enter Mexican territory and return them to their country, always with full respect for their human rights.”
“En la frontera sur estamos muy activos en el patrullaje, en construcción de estaciones para detener a los migrantes ilegales que entran a territorio mexicano y regresarlos a su país, siempre con el pleno respeto a los derechos humanos”, dijo Fox. [Privilegian la seguridad en Norteamérica Natalia Gomez Quintero y Jose Luis Ruiz Universal,  March 31st, 2006]
So why is it good if Mexico controls immigration and bad if the U.S. does?
So, while demanding rights for Mexicans illegally in U.S. territory, Mexico defends its own territory by detaining illegal aliens from countries poorer than Mexico. Many Mexican officials abuse these illegal aliens.
And yet, you don’t see Central American illegal aliens marching through the streets of Mexico, demanding their “rights.”
You don’t see the governments of Guatemala and Honduras meddling in Mexican internal politics.
Why not?
Because they all know that Mexico wouldn’t tolerate it.
But up north, Uncle Sam tolerates illegal aliens in the streets demanding legalization and constant meddling in U.S. politics by Mexican officials.
No wonder they don’t respect us!
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his “Dispatches from Iraq” are archived here his website is here.

The GOP’s Disconnect: It’s Worse Than You Think

By Donald Hank

A few days ago I got a call from one of the GOP’s phone lines soliciting funds for the next election.

The caller asked me first to listen to a message from Senator Ensign, who gave a stirring call to support the GOP in restoring America to the principled government of Ronald Reagan.

The caller came back on and asked me if I had heard Senator Ensign’s message all right. I said yes and she asked me for $150 for the GOP right off the bat.

I am guarded these days, so I asked where the Reagan-like Ensign stands on illegal immigration. She apologized and said she did not have that information.

I said: “That’s important.” Then I recalled that I had just received an email from NumbersUSA and they had listed the senators who were still waffling on this issue. I went and checked while I had her on the line.

Sure enough. There was Ensign listed among the wafflers. BTW, as of today, according to talk radio, Ensign still hasn’t made up his mind whether the US needs sovereignty or not. He is refusing to get return calls from famous radio hosts. Perhaps he is consulting a medium to call up Reagan’s ghost and ask him how his principles apply to this issue.

I told the caller Ensign was on the list of those who haven’t made up their minds on this important issue and said: “if Senator Ensign wants me to give the GOP money, tell him he has to vote no on cloture of the amnesty bill. I told her I was very very angry at the traitors in the GOP who wanted this bill to pass against the will of the vast majority of the public.

She said: “Could you just give $75 this time?”

I said: “You have just perfectly illustrated what is wrong with the Republican Party these days. You people don’t even listen to your constituents one single bit. I just got done telling you I am outraged beyond outrage at the GOP’s cavalier attitude toward the opinions of the vast majority of Republicans and yet you keep asking for money. How could you possibly be so insensitive to our voices?” My voice was wavering through this last monologue, my voice was getting louder, and I could feel my blood pressure rising fast.

She said: “Could you give $35?”

How to Debate with Leftists

By Olavo de Carvalho

True liberals and conservatives of this country will never make any headway as long as they continue to believe that the only thing separating them from leftists is a divergence of ideas that can be discussed publicly between equally honest, equally respectable persons.  The specific difference of the worldwide revolutionary movement is that it imbues its followers, servants and even sympathizers with a moral and psychological substance that is radically different from that throbbing in the hearts and minds of normal humanity.  The revolutionary sees himself as a member of an anointed suprahumanity endowed with special rights that are denied the common man and in fact inaccessible to his imagination.  When you debate with a leftist, he makes liberal use of these rights, which you know nothing about.  The common rules of debate that you rigorously follow, expecting him to do the same, are for him only a partial clause in a more vast and complex code that confers to him incomparably more flexible means of action than those of his opponent.  For you, proof of inconsistency is a mortal blow dealt to an argument.  For him, inconsistency can be a valuable tool to perplex the opponent and subjugate him psychologically.  For you, the contradiction between word and deed is proof of dishonesty.  For him, it is a question of method.  The actual view of the polemic confrontation as a dispute of ideas is something that is valid only for you.  For the revolutionary, ideas are integral parts of the dialectic process in the struggle for power; they are worthless of themselves; they can be changed like socks or underwear.  Every revolutionary is willing to defend “x” or the opposite of “x” depending on what is tactically convenient at the moment.  If you defeat him in the contest of “ideas,” he will try to integrate the winning idea in a strategic game that makes it work, in practice, in the opposite direction from his verbal statement.  You win, but leave empty-handed.  The debate with the revolutionary is always governed by two simultaneous codes, only one of which is known to you.  When you least expect it, he appeals to the secret code and trips you up.

You might be outraged that a deserter from the national Armed Forces is promoted to general post mortem while in the regime that he desired to establish in the country, not only these deserters but even mere civilians who attempt to abandon the territory are to be summarily shot.  You think that you have dealt a mortal blow to the revolutionary’s convictions.  But in his heart of hearts, he knows that the less the contradiction is explained and the more outrageous it is, the more useful it is in accustoming the public to the implicit belief that revolutionaries cannot be judged by ordinary moral standards.  Defeat in the field of logical arguments is an incomparably more worthwhile psychological victory.  It serves to place the revolutionary cause above the reach of logic.

You cannot defeat the revolutionary by mere “arguments.”  To these must be added an integral psychological unmasking of a tactic that is not intended to win debates but to use as an instrument of power to the point of relegating arguments to an inferior status.  In every debate situation one must transcend the sphere of logical confrontation and reveal the plan of action in which the revolutionary inserts the change of arguments and the psychological and political benefit he intends to derive from it, far beyond its apparent result.

But this means that the effective debate with leftists is that which does not allow you to become enmeshed in the formal rules of argumentation but proceeds further to total and ruthless psychological unmasking.  Proving that a leftist is wrong means nothing.  You must show that he is evil, perverse, false, deliberate and Machiavellian beneath the guise of a sincere, polite and civilized debating partner.  Do this and you will drive these people to tears of desperation, because at bottom, they know themselves and realize they are worthless.  Don’t give them the consolation of civilized camouflage fashioned from the naïve opponent’s hide.

Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosoper and columnist whose articles have appeared regularly in major Brazilian newspapers. See Mr. de Carvalho’s homepage for details and further columns.

Translated from the original Portuguese by Laigle’s Forum staff.

Mexican Government vs Those “Absurd” American Gun Rights

Below is a link to a great site for insight into events in Mexico that relate to Americans and their sovereignty. Rerun with permission from Allan Wall.
To Laigle’s Forum readers:
For many it may seem exaggerated to speak of a North American Union of the EU type. But I recall when the EU was called the EEC, European Economic Community. A few years later it was called the European Union and it had its own constitution, its own legislative body and its own court. The influence of the native courts of the individual nations is rapidly dwindling, and in fact, the legislators there are required to “harmonize” their laws to the EU laws. In other words, a centralized system has overwhelmed the nations, which are little more than puppet governments.
Now extrapolate all of that the our nation and imagine Mexico had as much power over our legislation as we did.
The open border policies of this administration and the attempts to pass an amnesty bill against the opposition of the overwhelming majority of grassroots Americans are the first steps. So far, we have managed to hold a runaway Senate at bay. If these same concerned citizens extend their efforts to the rest of this treachery on the part of their elected officials, perhaps we can remain a sovereign nation a little longer.
We must try.

Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Mexican Government Vs. Those “Absurd” American Gun Rights
Nature abhors a vacuum. When the U.S. government ceased to care about controlling the U.S.-Mexican border, the region descended into anarchy.

We now have illegal aliens and drugs moving north and Mexican drug smugglers even setting up listening and observation posts north of the border. There is an intrinsic relation between drug and alien smuggling, with drug smugglers using illegal aliens, sometimes as drug runners, sometimes as decoys.

But open borders work both ways. Recently, the Mexican government has been getting upset because of south-bound smuggling: of guns. Its preferred solution: the U.S. should abolish the right to keep and bear arms.

Don’t laugh—if the Bush-backed drive to marry Mexico prevails, gun control will happen.

In Mexico, the drug cartel wars go on and on. The last report I saw put it at 1263 slain in drug killings so far in calendar year 2007.

President Calderon, inaugurated in December, has made smashing the cartels one of his main priorities. Calderon has shown a lot of resolve and determination, in contrast to the passive response of Vicente Fox at the end of his presidential term. The Mexican public seems to support Calderon. A poll taken in May indicated a more optimistic Mexican public than the same poll taken 10 months earlier (July of 2006), despite the fact that killings have increased since then. In addition, 67% of Mexicans polled agreed that national security was at risk.

Nevertheless, crushing the cartels is an enormous challenge.

Jailing cartel chiefs doesn’t solve the problem, since they can continue to run their cartels from jail, or they’re just taken over by a relative, or a struggle for supremacy breaks out within the cartel.

Really eradicating the cartels would involve going after their funds, which are laundered to utilize a legitimate business as a cover. It also involves going after crooked cops, of which Mexico has no dearth. It’s been estimated that half the cops in the country are paid off by a drug cartel. [Police corruption undermines Mexico’s war on drugs, By Robin Emmott, Reuters, May 22, 2007] Some cops actually function as drug runners and hitmen.

Calderon has chosen the army as his principal weapon against the cartels because the Mexican army is one of the most respected institutions in the country and the president has more control over it than over the police. Nevertheless, the military route poses problems as well. The Mexican army has a high desertion rate. Some ex-soldiers find their way into the cartels, where the pay is much higher.

And, let’s face it, part of the problem is the enormous demand for drugs in the United States. It’s not a simple question of evil Mexican drug dealers and innocent Americans. There is a significant population of Americans who are voluntarily buying drugs. Americans are thus the principal financiers of Mexican drug cartels.

Our own “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure. So now that our own government is more and more integrated with that of Mexico, we pressure Mexico to go after the cartels—although we can’t even reduce demand.

The late Milton Friedman was a critic of the war on drugs, and the deleterious effects it has on other countries. In 1998, Friedman described it thusly:

“Our drug policy has led to thousands of deaths and enormous loss of wealth in countries like Colombia, Peru and Mexico, and has undermined the stability of their governments. All because we cannot enforce our laws at home. If we did, there would be no market for imported drugs. There would be no Cali cartel. The foreign countries would not have to suffer the loss of sovereignty involved in letting our advisers and troops operate on their soil, search their vessels and encourage local militaries to shoot down their planes. They could run their own affairs, and we, in turn, could avoid the diversion of military forces from their proper function.”  It’s Time to End the War on Drugs, Hoover Digest, 1998, #2

That was in 1998. Now the Colombian cartels have been replaced with Mexican cartels, but the basic analysis is the same.

(Of course, Milton Friedman also said that “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” They didn’t listen to Friedman on that topic either!)

As for weapons smuggling, that goes the other way. Mexican drug cartels send people to the U.S. to buy weapons, then they bring them back into Mexico.

Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. There are big signs on the border warning people about this. So how do they get them in?

According to members of the Mexican congress, it’s because of corruption in the Mexican Customs Department. The cartels have infiltrated their people into customs, and so they help their cartel companions get the guns into Mexico. In fact, about 2,000 illegal weapons enter the country daily.

And according to our own ATF, 60% of the illegal arms in Mexico come from the U.S. (which would also mean that 40% of them come from elsewhere).

The Mexican government is unhappy with the U.S. because of all these weapons entering its territory. Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora recently had this to say:

“American law seems absurd to me, because ….the citizens can easily acquire arms. American society lives the consequences of this on a daily basis, and it has begun to be reflected upon as a result of that Korean  not long ago.” [VDARE.COM note: If an American Attorney General referred to a mass murderer by race, he’d be looking at early retirement. You are invited to imagine what would happen if John Ashcroft referred to the Washington Snipers as “Those black guys,” or even “Those Muslims,” to get some idea of how much more insensitive Mexicans are about these things.] [“Cínica”, la política antidrogas de EU; su ley es “absurda”: Medina Mora, Alfredo Mendez, La Jornada, June 15, 2007]

So the Mexican government doesn’t like our gun laws, eh? Well, just as American drug buyers feed the Mexican cartels, so Mexican demand for guns feeds that market.

And although Mexican gun laws are stricter than ours, that hasn’t stopped plenty of Mexicans from getting their hands on automatic weapons, grenades and rocket launchers—all of which are utilized by drug cartels.

Mexican officials want to have their cake and eat it too. They want an open border for Mexicans to go into the U.S. whenever they want. But they don’t want Mexicans in the U.S. to buy weapons and bring them back into Mexico!

If you really want open borders, you’d better be prepared for who and what comes across them, and for whatever reason.

In fact, the increasing integration of the two countries exacerbates the problems.

After all, if one country doesn’t like the drug or gun laws of its neighbors, that wouldn’t be a problem if each were a sovereign nation minding its own business, would it?

And, consider this. If all these Council on Foreign Relations-inspired Security And Prosperity Partnership and North American Union developments continue apace, these border problems will be “solved” by eliminating the border.

The CFR 2005 report Building a North American Community called for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community” that has a common “outer security perimeter”. It proposes that the North American Community’s “boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

What our elites are moving toward is the elimination of the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian borders and their replacement by the “outer security perimeter” around North America.

(And eventually, even that border would no doubt be subsumed into an even larger globalist entity).

So what would happen to the guns, drugs and illegal aliens now crossing the border?

In the case of the illegal aliens, they would be allowed to continue crossing because they wouldn’t be aliens anymore.

In the case of drugs and guns, their legality would be determined on the basis of the new legal system of the globalized entity…not by the old-fashioned U.S. constitution.

We are unmistakably headed for the loss of U.S. sovereignty, and the sovereignty of neighboring countries, to be replaced by rule by a transnational globalized bureaucratic elite.

That’s what the future looks like—if we don’t stop it now.

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles

Mao in America

Similarities between a failed Chinese system and the ideology driving Western thought

By Donald Hank

There is no standard definition of Maoism, although a recurring theme for most definitions is the emphasis on an agrarian revolution as opposed to the Soviet-style urban revolution.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t come close to describing what happened in the Cultural Revolution of China, Mao Zedong’s salient achievement, which gutted China both spiritually and materially, killing millions and leaving the economy in ruins.

Zeroing in on the specific features of Maoism that caused this, I like to define Maoism thusly from the standpoint of reality rather than ideology:

Maoism: a refinement of Marxism-Leninism wherein the disenfranchised classes are given maximum power and privileges while the former privileged classes are outlawed and divested of all power.

Thus there is a virulent and punitive aspect that is not present in the older forms of Marxism-Leninism.
Chairman Mao himself may not have agreed with this definition but it describes to a T what he actually promoted and what happened as a result in the 1970s.

What does this have to do with America today?

The American and European Left adored Mao. They studied his “Little Red Book,” followed the events in China in the 1970s, and expected positive results from his experiment that would vindicate Communism, a system that was found wanting in the USSR. Jean Filhos, a left-of-center Parisian sculptor in whose atelier I worked in 1970, once urged me to travel to China. He was enthusiastic about Mao, who was all the rage in the circles he traveled in. The Left on both sides of the Atlantic still admires Mao.
To get a feel for how Maoism translated into reality and how Mao’s China suffered from this relentless ideology, you need only view Yimou Zhang’s film masterpiece “To Live,” available on DVD for about $11 through or Blockbuster videos.  This will show you where we could be headed with the gay agenda, for example, which is not content just to secure “rights” (actually privileges) for gays but in fact seeks to punish those who oppose their political agenda. This Maoist idea is being put into practice throughout the Western world in the form of hate crimes legislation: Sweden, England, France, Canada, Australia and, yes, the USA have all seen arrests of Christians and others who dared to non-violently oppose this sexual-orientation aspect of Western Maoism.

I am not suggesting that Mao had so much influence on Western culture that the Left is blindly allowing his ideas to dictate their behavior. I believe this may be a home-grown parallel phenomenon.

My point is that, because of the similarity between the modern Left and Mao, smart people should realize that we are heading for another failure similar to Mao’s and that we should do everything in our power to avoid falling over the same cliff.

Although Mao’s system proved even more disastrous than the Soviet one, the American Left are religious zealots who remain oblivious to the facts and cling tenaciously to their failed ideology.

And since they dominate the media, academia and much of government, the sheer power of their propaganda machine has overwhelmed our culture, permeating important areas of our lives, and even mentally overwhelming many “conservatives.”

How could this be happening?

Keep in mind that a Western style of Maoist thought permeates the media and has translated into public policies.
Here are more examples of Maoist-type policies that have been mainstreamed and found wide acceptance even in many “conservative” circles:

— Radical feminism.  The writings of feminist icons like Andrea Dworkin, which have had a domino-like influence, first on the feminists, then on ordinary people, then on government, reveal a deep hatred of “male culture” and all things traditional, particularly male-female marriage (which they derisively call patriarchy). As for anti-male bias, it is evident in TV ads, domestic violence campaigns, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — which enshrines in law the notion that only males are capable of violence — and in “family” court. (See the books: “The War Against Boys,” and “Who Stole Feminism” by Christina Hoff Sommers’ and Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power” and “Father and Child Reunion.”)
— Affirmative action.  This idea has shut thousands of qualified non-minority young people out of higher education by forcing schools to admit quotas of under-qualified minorities, who in turn have suffered because the majority of them were unprepared academically. It has also cost thousands of qualified non-minority workers jobs. This concept was carried to its logical extreme when Black Panther thugs were given free reign to wreak havoc on college campuses in the 60s and early 70s.
— Open-border policies and amnesty for illegal aliens.  It is estimated that each illegal immigrant family costs the taxpayer $18,000-20,000 per year and that illegal immigrants take the lives of about 45,000 US residents annually. Yet border guards Compean and Ramos were criminalized for daring to oppose the incursion of actual criminals into our country.

Prosecutor Mike Nifong was a classic Maoist class warrior who saw only the social classes — female and black vs male and rich heterosexual — and not the facts of the case.
In Mao’s system, it wasn’t enough that the former landlord class should be abolished in favor of a classless society.  Mao wanted the former privileged class to be eternally branded and punished, not absorbed into society.  Thus the sins of the parents were visited on one’s children.  There was no redemption available. If your grandparents had been landlords, for example, you and your children could never become officers in the armed forces. Today, the tax payer plays the role of the rich privileged class. He, his children and his children’s children are doomed eternally to pay for the excesses of the Left.

Some would argue that Mao was a homophobe and that it is therefore absurd to call the gay agenda Maoist.

But we are not comparing the demographics of the underdog vs the privileged groups in China and the US with each other.  We are showing how the perceived underdog, whatever group he may belong to in the respective culture, is given privileges at the expense of the higher or middle classes. Thus, in China under Mao, the former rich landlords and the bureaucracy were cast as privileged classes and hence demonized while the peasants were cast as the underdog and hence were awarded privilege. In America, for example, Bible believing Christians, men, sexually traditional heteros and the rich are deemed privileged and hence are demonized, while gays, women and minorities are deemed the underdog and hence awarded privileges (such as a tailor-made definition of marriage unknown heretofore anywhere in the world). 

In the West, the main reason these malignant manifestations of Maoism have triumphed is ignorance. High school and college history departments ignore the failed ideologies of the 20th century, focusing instead on diversions such as global warming, animal rights and other liberal issues. This opens the doors for a repetition of history’s tragedies here and now.

For those not convinced that the identified tendencies in America can be legitimately identified as Maoist, let me point out something that would otherwise be inexplicable:

In China today, despite international pressure, radical feminism and the gay agenda are receiving zero attention on the part of a government that has meanwhile purged itself of Maoism.

After all, close to a billion people there saw first hand the results of other Maoist ideas put into practice. Even the crème of Madison Avenue talent couldn’t sell these movements there.

The Chinese have put Maoism in the past. Sadly, we seem to have reserved it for our future.

Donald Hank is a former language teacher, currently a technical translator and staff writer for Laigle’s Forum.

Contact the author:

Wanted: A Few Bad Men

How the US Immigration and Naturalization Service Actively Promotes Criminality While Discouraging Honest Applicants


By Don Hank


Americans who want open borders are probably under the assumption that legal immigrants are treated fairly. They may even think these people who fill out the papers per immigration law are receiving privileges the undocumented don’t enjoy.


Let me tell you about my experiences with the US Immigration and Naturalization Service so that you can intelligently evaluate that assumption.


While studying at the Mandarin Training Center in Taiwan in the 1980s I had an acquaintance who enrolled by mail at a college in Wisconsin to study English there for 2 months.  The admissions office of this college advised her to get a tourist visa instead of a study visa, to “simplify” things. During her obligatory stopover in Seattle, she innocently told a querying INS agent that the purpose of her travel was study.


She was told “you can’t study in the US on a tourist visa.”  She explained to the agent that she’d been advised by the college to come on a tourist visa to simplify the process. Anyone with any sense could have seen she was telling the truth.  There could be nothing gained in fabricating such a story and in fact more could be gained by lying.  Further, the law requiring students to apply for a student visa was clearly intended for long-term students whose stay would exceed the life of the average tourist visa. Yet she was promptly sent back to Taiwan and made to feel like a criminal.  She got no refund of her airfare, which I can imagine represented her life savings up to that time.


Now there were millions of undocumented Mexican nationals living illegally throughout the US at the time without visas and, like today, the INS and border security were doing essentially nothing about it.  Yet decent people like my Taiwanese friend, who wanted to play by the rules, were being abused outrageously by this same system!  There’s a name for this kind of system: Maoism.  Under the Maoist system, which prevailed in the Great Cultural Revolution that nearly destroyed China (you know, that chapter missing in your public school textbooks), people considered to be privileged are treated like criminals, on the assumption that they are stealing from the “poor,” while those considered to be the underdogs are given privileges, whether they have earned them or not (for details, see the book Son of the Revolution by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro).


Ted Kennedy, America’s premiere Maoist, saw his first amnesty bill passed in 1986, around the same time my Taiwanese friend was deported. Under this legislation, scofflaws got to stay in the US indefinitely.


When my wife, then my fiance, first arrived at the Miami airport in 1997, valid visa in hand, she was detained so long for questioning by the INS that she missed her flight to Washington.  I had flown with her to Miami from Panama and planned to continue on to Washington with her.  We were separated when she went through the immigration line and she failed to return.  I had no idea what had happened to her.  I flew on back to Washington and then drove home, wondering if she was all right.  She called late that night to tell me she’d be coming the next day. She said she had almost been sent back as an overstay risk (she saved herself by showing proof of a bank account with substantial cash in it) and that over half the Hispanics on her flight—all with valid visas—were sent back home by the INS!  For many, the airfare must have represented their life savings.  A real human tragedy.


Yet that very day dozens of brazen scofflaw Mexicans were smuggled across the border and were ignored by our government thanks to intentionally lax border security and ambivalent immigration laws—clear-cut dereliction of duty by an entire government.  They and their children now receive free government services and medical care, estimated at roughly $18000-$20000 a year per family.  Our taxes support that. Are you starting to get the picture?


The bad guys get a free ride.  The good guys—who go through the proper channels—get punished severely on the slightest pretext, just for doing the right thing!


My wife’s brother died last year, leaving behind four kids and a desperately poor widow.


Besides sending the funds for Rito’s funeral, we decided that the best way to help was to offer to bring the eldest of my wife’s nieces to our home to live here while studying English at a high school in the US for a year or two (in Panama, knowledge of English is a prerequisite for most higher-paid jobs).  We were the logical ones to provide assistance and would be doing so without asking for one penny of government aid.


We went to the US consulate in Panama during our last visit and explained the situation.  We were told that we did not have status to invite Michelina to the US because the aunt-niece relationship was not close enough.  They said that because they government could not countenance a foreign child receiving a free education at a public school, we would have to find a government approved private school to enroll her in and apply for an F-1 student visa.  I asked for a list of such government approved schools.  The agent said she knew of no such list.  She said I would have to inquire at each individual private school to see if they were approved.


I later called the State Department and asked for information on these “government approved” schools.  I got the same story, namely, that I needed to talk to the schools themselves to see if they were government approved.


A few days ago, I called the Philadelphia office of Senator Arlen Specter, who happens to have an expert available on staff for immigration assistance.


I asked this “expert” if she could help me get a list of schools approved by the government for application for an F-1 student visa.  She had never heard about this but suggested I call the schools themselves.  That’s when I discovered my hidden talent as a comedian.  I said “well, if the government doesn’t know if these schools are approved or not, what good will it do to ask the schools?”  She started to laugh.  It was a genuine belly laugh, almost uncontrollable.  I then realized how funny this whole thing was, and started laughing myself.


But it soon occurred to me that her RINO boss, whom PA conservatives affectionately refer to as “Benedict Arlen,” had just voted to allow scofflaws to stay in our country indefinitely under a transparent amnesty scam while callously ignoring the plight of a poor orphan girl whose aunt and uncle were even prepared to foot the bill. And then it wasn’t funny anymore.


I later checked in the booklet on student visas that I had downloaded from the USCIS website (it cost me $50) for the address of the nearest USCIS Application Support Center. I found three such centers listed for Pennsylvania.  The one located in the central part of the state was at 3400 Concord Rd. in York.  Somehow, I couldn’t Yahoo! that address up, so I went to the post office to ask where it was.


The postmistress gave me a jaundiced look and said 3400 Concord Rd. was the York County prison.  So I took a drive up there, and sure enough, the support center was located right at the corner of the York County prison grounds, where according to the prison’s own web site “INS currently rents 650 of the facility’s 1650 beds.”


You may argue that not all detainees are lawbreakers and that some may be applying for asylum.


Let me say this as diplomatically as I can: in the United States of America, the offer of asylum is a scam and a hypocrisy.  Offer Third World nationals asylum for any reason and suddenly everyone is a victim.  I once wasted a day of my vacation in Guilin trying to help a Chinese man get asylum.  He said he was a union leader and was being persecuted for that reason.  About an hour into my conversation with him, his story unraveled. He was clearly lying. I flew with him, as promised, to the embassy in Guangdong (which was on my homeward route), where he was denied the visa. Even they saw through him.


Third World women routinely come to America on “fiancé” visas and then denounce their American fiancés for domestic violence to get asylum.  But strangely, they never have a mark on them when they appear at the INS centers.  And those who succeed in pulling off the scam routinely wind up importing their boyfriends from back home within about a year.  And if you’ll recall, some of the Albanian terrorists plotting to blow up Fort Dix had applied for asylum,


But beyond that, how can a country that jails people for expressing their religious beliefs offer asylum to anyone?  Where will American Christians get asylum when the federal “hate” crime laws kick in here? It doesn’t get any more hypocritical than this!


I was unable to find any figures on the criminal status of the INS detainee population at the York County prison, but to get a ballpark idea, I went to a website of another INS facility, and here is what it says:


On a recent day, 128 were INS detainees, including 97 residents facing deportation after criminal convictions and 31 people who had violated immigration laws.

Simple math (97 + 31 = 128) tells us all of these people were lawbreakers, without exception. Also, please note that “facing deportation” does not translate into deportation. Far from it when we consider that on average, these people probably had 7 or 8 prior arrests. Jim Kouri, Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, writes:
“On April 7, 2005, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.
In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.’

Yet, this USCIS Application Support Center at York, the only one in Central Pennsylvania, was clearly established for the primary purpose of helping these lawbreakers, mostly repeat offenders, become permanent residents of the United States, eligible for social programs that cost you dearly. But don’t even think about trying to help a family member come to study in the US.


Now imagine yourself in our shoes: here are my wife and I, good conservatives who believe in “teaching them how to fish,” fighting against impossible odds to secure a decent education for our niece while our government spends the bulk of INS monies on programs geared to the socialist idea of giving away the fish.


Moral: if you are an honest foreign national with solvent willing sponsors in the US and thus pose no risk of becoming a burden on the state, stay home.  You’re not welcome here!


But if you’re a scofflaw who has surreptitiously crept into our country, who have no private funding whatsoever and who will almost certainly be a drag on our economy, and especially if you are a low-life criminal, welcome, Amigo, to Maoist America!


Once you’ve served your minimal sentence, you can become a privileged member of our society.


And why not?  With a government headed by crooks and shysters, you’ll feel right at home!


Just as I had finished this column and was reaching for the aspirin, my wife came in my office and said she had just called home and learned that our niece actually doesn’t want to live here.  She is very adamant about not wanting to leave her mother (who said poverty isn’t a family value?).


There’s a nice irony here, and I’m savoring it:  Liberals and RINOs insist that we must open our borders to everyone, as if all Hispanics can’t wait to escape their inhospitable homelands.  Even my wife and I, who should have known better, had been temporarily seduced into this mindset.


But in the end, a little child took us by the hand as it were, and showed us, two impatient, vainly struggling adults who should’ve known better, that God is still in charge.


Donald Hank is a technical translator and staff writer for Laigle’s Forum.


Contact the author:


How the Fathers’ Movement Can Succeed

by Don Hank

I became a father’s rights advocate in 1995, shortly after my first encounter with a Kafkaesque court system.  If someone had told me our justice system was like that I would have assumed they were making it up. 


I promptly founded Lancaster Non-Custodial Parents (later known as Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, LYNCUP) and set about to right the wrongs of a broken system. As a business man, I am a problem solver. Leave it to me.


Since then, I spent years studying the issue. I needed to know why this was happening to me and to thousands of others and how my life savings and the custody of my son could be so quickly transferred from me, someone the courts hardly knew, to her, someone else they hardly knew.


Here’s what I found out:


In the 1960s the radical feminists had started taking over the “family” courts.  Now feminists don’t care about women, any more than homosexual activists care about gays.  The goal of both groups is family destruction.  They call it “culture change.”

So why did they do this?


Feminists, like all radical leftists, believe in the myth that traditional family oppresses women, who no longer need men for anything, even to help bring up their children.  Their writings show that this idea is purely subjective, and although science shows fathers are important, they believe this myth implicitly.  Their ideology is a religion and they are blind zealots.


They achieved their mission with lightning speed by first creating a sense of national crisis, just as the radical gay activists of today are doing.


To create the sense of crisis, they proclaimed that fathers were abandoning their kids and the kids’ moms in droves, leaving them high and dry.


Of course, some fathers were in fact doing just that, playing into their hands, and they could point to these wayward fathers as examples of the urgent need to clamp down on men.


The radical feminists also said millions of men were guilty of wife beating.  First they said it was ex-number of wife beatings per day across the nation.  Then the number somehow doubled. The press dutifully reported these incongruous numbers without requiring verification. The feminists then asked for tough anti-male legislation enabling judges to evict men on unsubstantiated testimony. Their request was soon granted in all 50 states. Oddly, the number of wife beatings just kept increasing, even long after draconian laws were in place. Men apparently liked punishment and were incorrigible. Under the new laws, the right to face one’s accusers was overcome. The Constitution was trumped. But that wasn’t precedent. Think about it. We could have seen it coming. More on that later on.
Somewhere along the way, someone named Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire conducted a long-term study and found that the number of wife beaters was about equal to the number of husband beaters, and that, in fact, the latter used weapons significantly more often.


That information should have changed everything.


But politicians could do nothing with such statistics.  The female of the species was already irreversibly cast as the victim and any attempt to undo that image would garner no votes for any of them in the long run.


After a few years of involvement with the movement, I saw that no posse was on the way and none would be coming.


Men lobbying for fathers rights were, as it were, fools waiting for Godot.


As I studied, I began to see that fathers’ issues were just part of a much bigger problem, and that problem was hard line Maoism cynically calling itself “liberalism.”

It was easy to trace this bigger problem back to the hippie movement of the 60s when America’s values system had started to upend itself.


To my surprise, I found that numerous men’s groups, like the NCM (National Center for Men) were trying to imitate the strategies and tactics of the feminists.  Thus, NCM’s Mel Feit, for example, started dressing like a woman and going on talk shows.  He pointed out that, if he was seen as a woman, people would listen to him.  Given the demonization of men in the media, that made some sense. One of his pet laments was that women could decide to abort their children while men could not. Thus, he advocated abortion rights for men as well.


That made no sense.


Not only did these men, who called themselves masculists in imitation of the feminists, seek to imitate the immoral movement that had hurt men and their children in the first place, but their message was also irrelevant. If the oppression of fathers by the legal and court system had been the first or only wholesale violation of constitutional principles, then these men might have had a leg to stand on. But they seemed oblivious to the fact that an earlier flawed decision had ushered in a new era of constitutional abuse, and now they were on the receiving end of a further refinement of that abuse by a corrupt system whose previous fraud they had deferred to without a whimper and, incredibly, still failed to notice.


Meanwhile, I was initially impressed by the works of Dr. Warren Farrell, who had once been an activist in the women’s movement but had grown disenchanted and gone over to the men’s movement.  I eagerly read his best-selling book “The Myth of Male Power” and later “Father and Child Reunion,” which pointed out the lies and distortions about men that had influenced family law, making it almost impossible for men to get even joint custody of their children.  Farrell also showed that, statistically, sole male custody was better than sole female custody. It was brilliant, as far as it went.


In the wake of his book successes, Warren was elected to the board of the Congress of Fathers and Children.


Then in the last California gubernatorial race, he threw his hat in the ring.  Instead of breaking witht he party that had wrought such favoc with our culture, he ran on a Democratic ticket, declaring he would “reform” that party.


One gentleman who called my non-custodial parents organization, LYNCUP, told me how his wife had physically abused him throughout their marriage.  He had been a Christian but his treatment in the courts drove him to atheism, he said.


I don’t want to create the impression that men and fathers are buying wholesale into the lies of the Left without any resistance whatsoever. In fact, many of the fathers who call me are devout believers who have been strengthened by their untoward experiences. No, I am talking mostly about the ones who should know better, including the top national leadership, which, at least initially and for many years, failed to distance itself from the Left and has failed to identify godless Leftism as the arch enemy of fatherhood that it is.


The Spiritual Side of the War against Men

Then shall he answer them, saying, verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matt. 25:45-6)

In 2001, as I was beginning to see the fatal flaws in the leadership of the men’s and fathers’ movement, my personal life came apart, and when I hit bottom, I found myself abruptly faced with a choice: Trust God or perish. This choice was no longer an abstraction. It was an existential imperative.


Unlike the man supposedly driven into atheism, I saw that God was speaking through tragedy.  This man’s mistake lay in believing that the God who created him somehow owed him something.  And to punish God, he disavowed him, like a small child might rebel against a parent who refused to buy him a toy.


I recognized that God had finally come for me, and I let him walk me home, with tears of repentance streaming down my cheeks. 


As I read the Bible and fellowshipped with Christians, I saw the aspect of this situation I had missed before:


I looked back on the 60s when all the devastating cultural change had started and realized who was to blame.


It was me.


I was every bit as much to blame as any of the feminists, corrupt judges, lawyers and indifferent legislators who had allowed us fathers to be stripped of our rights. I was to blame much as Saul of Tarsus had been to blame for the martyr’s death of Stephen. I had stood by and done nothing.


You see, back in the 60s, I—we men—had welcomed Wade versus Roe as much as women did, maybe more.  That decision, along with the pill, opened new vistas of hedonistic gratification.  The fact that it might cost us our national soul mattered not a bit.
We had traded something infinitely precious for something utterly worthless.

As strange as it might seem to an unbeliever, by giving up, I found the struggle suddenly becoming significantly easier and more manageable.


Before, I had been trying to fight almost alone, along with a ragtag army of other clueless disgruntled fathers.  Some, like Farrell, were brilliant and capable of besting the radical feminists in debates.  Yet nothing changed.  We should have known that. Debate never changes leftists because they are of their father the Devil, so truth is not their game. That’s why they invented post-modernism. Besides, more to the point, both sides were mired knee-deep in the moral lowlands.


And it was men like me who had sold their birthright, so to speak, turning the playing field over to evil.  We were tools in the hands of the Prince of darkness. So the question was not: how could God do this to me? It was: how could God stand by and watch us walk away victorious when we ourselves were perpetrators?


But now I was no longer focused on winning. I gave myself, including my infernal Gordian knot of a life, over to Jesus Christ.


What I now saw through spiritual eyes can best be explained by an analogy:

Suppose you had a wound in your wrist and were losing blood fast.

You could try treating the wrist, applying compresses.


But that wouldn’t stop the bleeding, would it?  To do that, you would need to apply pressure higher up the arm, over the main artery.


I—along with the rest of the men’s movement—had been operating on a local level, treating symptoms when in fact the problem was systemic.


The body, that is, our nation, was dying, but we were obsessed with only a small part of it, namely, our wretched rights.  Even though we activists constantly stressed children’s need for fathers and claimed to be fighting for them, at bottom, we knew it was about us. That’s why our cause was doomed.


The solution had to be sought on a higher level, and that level was not physical.

It was spiritual.


Ignoring the spiritual side of spiritual warfare is like ignoring the nuclear side of nuclear warfare, only the damage is more permanent, eternal to be exact.


Wounded disgruntled fathers continue to call me and discuss their issues.  And I give them as much time as they need to unload and also advise them as best I can.  I understand how close to suicide many of them are.  But I generally wind up telling them what I’ve just told you, about the spiritual side, about how we men had lost our way by siding with the Left and looking to a godless system to save us, and how we desperately need to restore our souls before we could hope to win the war.


At that point, I generally lose their attention, I am sorry to say.  It’s not that they are being rude or deliberately ignoring me. It is more as if they no longer understood plain English.


But that’s to be expected.  America has been taught by clever word-twisting charlatans to believe that good is evil and evil is good, and that there is no such thing as truth.  Abortion and free love are inalienable rights.  What part of that didn’t I understand?

But men are like logs.  If a wedge is applied, for example, in the bark across the grain rather than with the grain, the wood will not break, but if it is applied at the cut end so that it enters a plane of separation, even a child can split the log.  I believe that at some point in our lives, God sets the wedge, putting each one of us in our splitting position. He needs us broken, devoid of any and all vestiges of pride and self.

Some of us are full of knots. We refuse to split no matter where the wedge is placed.

But most have a tender spot that will yield to a little pressure.  At some point, divorce court puts most men in that splitting position.


It is vital to recognize that and to act in timely fashion, taking advantage of a golden opportunity to achieve salvation.


Many divorced fathers are hurting this Father’s Day season.  Some have been denied all access to their children while being assessed a confiscatory amount of “child” support (actually a mother subsidy, as Farrell correctly notes).  Some are in jail, unable to pay.  Many are wondering which way to turn, now that they’ve lost their life savings and their families.


They’re lonely.  Their kids are suffering thanks to a heartless system.

But how many of us have considered this?:


God knows from personal experience what it is to be alienated from his Son and watch him suffer, apparently as a result of a corrupt judiciary.  Yet He knows all the suffering was actually a result of sin. Not his Son’s, but ours. But the suffering had a purpose: your salvation.


Look at the remarkable symmetry:


Here we are, all of us, God separated from his only begotten Son, and we broken men standing apart from both Them and our own children, with a broken Jewish and Roman judiciary in the first century, and a broken American judiciary in the 21st serving as a foil, the apparent, or material cause, but with our sin as the spiritual, or real, cause of all this separation—our separation from God and His son and our children’s separation from us. And on top of that, we are even the reason the judiciary is broken! Doesn’t the perfect beauty of this tragedy stir your heart, Dear Friend? Now can you stop blaming God and others?


All God wants is for each hurting father to turn away from sin and accept his son’s blood as propitiation.


The clever charlatans of the Left, the same group that disenfranchised fathers by promoting radical feminism, have told you that obedience and belief are dangerous to mankind.  They trotted out the tired analogy with Nazism umpteen times.


Don’t you fall for it, Dad.


Just this once, refocus all that energy you had been directing toward defeating the courts and legislature to the goal of defeating the Left’s pernicious myth that the leftist construct of civil rights can save you and that the problem can be fixed by the corrupt system that caused it in the first place.  In other words, focus on yourself this time.

You’ve tried disobedience and unbelief.  It didn’t work.

Now come to the only true Savior.


The Winning Formula:


First, at variance with the teachings of the fathers’ movement, acknowledge that fatherhood in itself is not sacred or worthy.


If you don’t belong to God, then there’s nothing sacred or worthy in you or in anything you do.


To make yourself worthy, suspend unbelief.  Ask God to forgive you of your sins in the name of His son Jesus.  Dig deep down into your heart for those hidden sins and enumerate them, pronouncing their names.  Anger, hatred, deceit, false pride, unclean lusts, whatever they may be.  You know what they are.  Ask Him to give you the strength to move forward and avoid repeating them.  If you slip and fall later, beg Him for forgiveness. He’ll forgive you again, and again. But keep your eyes on Him and keep getting back up to ultimately claim the moral high ground. Then ask God to give you love toward those who’ve tormented you—your ex, her lawyers, the judge, the feminists, the judgmental ladies at the child support enforcement agency, and so on.  Ask him to bless them! Ask Him with all the faith and love you can possibly muster up. This is absolutely crucial. Without love, you cannot win. With it, you can’t lose.
During the custody hearing, look at each of your former tormentors with love in your heart. Yes, this is not easy!  But it is so worth it! And you can do it by remembering their mortality, the everlasting punishment that awaits them if they fail to repent, and the fact that you now have something they need so desperately, namely, the salvation of your soul. Ask God to give you the words to say during your testimony.  Resolve to be truthful. Don’t lie or flatter anyone and don’t soft pedal to spare anyone’s feelings, but speak with love and tranquility (an aspirin may help). Therein lies true manliness. When your turn comes to testify, tell the court you are genuinely sorry for your role in all this mess and that, with God’s help, you intend to change. Tell the judge whatever he decides you will accept it as God’s will. Then do just that, no matter what.


“Wait a minute,” you say.  “I was framed.  She lied about me at every turn.  I am a good father.”


That’s your physical man speaking.  From God’s standpoint, you without God are not a good anything, although your real sin may not be what your ex accuses you of. 

Consider this:

If you’re in the fathers’ movement, you may have marched or demonstrated for fathers’ rights.


But now ask yourself:  When was the last time I joined a pro-life march?  Don’t I know that the taking of an innocent life is at least as great a sin in God’s eyes as stripping fathers of their parental rights? Nine out of ten fathers who ask themselves this question will have to admit that, from that standpoint, they really are not the heroic champions of justice they imagined themselves to be. Most never once seriously considered the suffering of the unborn brought on by the same heartless judiciary that alienates us from our children. Only through experiencing their own suffering can they now see the injustice. That is certainly not very heroic or worthy of praise. But acknowledging this shortcoming takes courage.


You see, God is looking at the overall picture, and we can’t even hope to fool him.  He knows the vast majority of fathers not only have done nothing to oppose the blatantly unconstitutional and cruel court decision that claims a million innocent lives annually, but we actually welcomed it as part of our sexual liberation. The clever charlatans have us convinced abortion is a right, and we hypocritically pretend we defend it for the “women’s” sake!


God saw the hypocrisy from the outset and in His infinite righteousness, turned our sordid sexual liberation into slavery.  And not because He hated us but because He grieves for us and wants us back. For many of us, this is the only way we can hope to find our way back.


Child support, mother custody and eviction notices without recourse to trial are fair wages for a men’s sexual liberation that came at the price of traditional family and children’s well-being. 


When you admit this to yourself, you will feel truly free, because you’ll no longer feel the need to convince people of your own innocence.  Most divorced or separated men expend an inordinate amount of effort proclaiming their innocence.  Once you see yourself as you are, you will be free of the obsession to vindicate yourself, and you can turn your attention to more important things, like serving God and helping others to find Him.  And therein lies true freedom.


If the disenfranchised fathers of this nation—or even the majority of them—humble themselves and turn from their wickedness, God will heal our land and our hearts.  That’s his promise (2 Chronicles 7:14).


I don’t pretend that you will immediately be let off the hook. You will most likely experience almost excruciating mental anguish at times. But you will be given the strength to endure it. And everyone around you will be astounded at the change in you, and will see Jesus in you as you walk with Him. And as a Christian, that is your job: to mirror Jesus in everything you do so that others will follow Him.


Perhaps you will be the next father to break as God applies his pressure to that wedge, bringing our sick nation a step closer to that promised healing.


Dad, God loves you as you love your children and is waiting for you with outstretched arms. He wants you home for Father’s Day. Will you go?


Donald Hank is a technical translator and staff writer for Laigle’s Forum. He is also the founder and President of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents (LYNCUP).


Contact the author: