McCain, you ain’t off the hook yet

Donald Hank    By Donald Hank

According to an article in the Washington Post, John McCain has now said that we need border barriers. You may say that is not too bad for a Ted Kennedy bosom pal who worked his tail off last summer to keep the borders wide open and reward 12-20 million lawbreakers with amnesty.

But you may recall my earlier article suggesting that conservatives write to the McCain campaign and demand that he persuade the president and Senate to close the borders, deport illegal immigrants, release the jailed border guards and fire federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton, who wrongfully jailed these agents, before we will vote for John McCain.

For those who may have missed that, I had urged readers to contact the McCain Campaign with this message:

Sen. McCain, I am respectfully asking you to persuade your friends in the Senate and your friend the President to actually close the border by November, actually building a physical fence spanning all parts of the southern US border generally deemed to be vulnerable, turning back all illegal immigrants detained at the southern border and elsewhere in the United States, releasing border agents Compean and Ramos from prison and firing US Prosecutor Johnny Sutton for abuse of authority. If you succeed in persuading them, and if you do not move substantially further to the Left on any other issue, then I will understand that you are not only sincere in your campaign promises but are strong enough politically to lead America. Under these circumstances and only these, I pledge that I will vote for you in November. If you do not, I will vote for a third party candidate.

I would like to remind readers that McCain’s latest concession does not get him off the hook. He has a long way to go. My article had a lot of hits, mostly because WorldNetDaily graciously linked to it from their news site. Obviously, this action in which many of you participated, along with strong statements by Ann Coulter and, recently, talk show host Bill Cunningham, that they would vote for Hillary to help keep McCain out of the White House, were partly if not wholly responsible for McCain’s backtracking on his previous pro-amnesty and pro-open border stand on immigration. But note that McCain has a long way to go before he is compliant enough with your message to the McCain Campaign to earn your vote. He hasn’t even mentioned border agents Compean and Ramos. I for one will not vote for McCain if he does not make a really strong statement denouncing the jailing of these fine men and promising to release them immediately if he is elected. I absolutely could not vote in conscience for a man who would support by his inaction the betrayal of these loyal government servants. Did he, or anyone in the press, even notice that these border guards are Hispanics themselves? My wife and I watch the news on Univisión and the opinion among viewers there is almost unanimous, namely, that Compean and Ramos are victims of a wrongful sentence.  It is one thing to want open borders and amnesty, but another to want your fellow Hispanics punished for doing their jobs.

I strongly urge you to send McCain another message reminding him of the original promise we made as conservatives, as articulated above, and that he is not anywhere near the benchmark we expect of him to earn our vote.

In the interest of making of John McCain a more palatable candidate for conservatives, and thus helping him get elected, please consider sending the following text to the McCain Campaign in an email or regular mailing to

John McCain 2008 / P.O. Box 16118 / Arlington, VA 22215

or by phone:


Sen. McCain, a while back, conservatives like myself contacted your campaign HQ in an effort to help you, concerned that your support was dangerously frail, and suggesting a remedy. We urged you to persuade your friends in the Senate and your friend the President to actually close the border by November, building a physical fence, turning back all illegal immigrants detained at the southern border and elsewhere, releasing border agents Compean and Ramos from prison and firing US Prosecutor Johnny Sutton for abuse of authority. In an effort to further your campaign, we promised if you succeed in persuading the Senate and President to do these things, and if you do not move substantially further to the Left, then we would understand that you are not only sincere in your campaign promises but are strong enough politically to lead America. Under these circumstances, we pledged to vote for you in November, putting all your past actions behind us. Recently, you stated, for the first time, that we need a barrier at the border. That suggests to us you are listening. This is the least of what is expected of you, since the Constitution says you would be the chief executive, in charge of enforcing laws. Please look carefully at the requirements for us to vote for you. There are a few more to go. We have set the bar high.  After all, you have set your sights on the highest office in our country. We decide whether you have likewise set high standards worthy of that office.

Thank you

The ball is still in McCain’s court.

Our chief executive refuses to do his job and uphold the Constitution. Americans aren’t about to help another such politician lay siege to our White House and our country.

Let kids spend “day of silence” at home

My wife was watching Jerry Springer just now and saw a presentation of a mom and her gay son dressed as a woman.

The mom was yelling that the son was not allowed in the family until he recognized his own sex for what it was.

Jerry told her that America did not agree with her, but sympathized with the son.  He was probably right.

Here is the story of a major tragedy in America that 95% of the Springer viewers missed:

On the one hand, the mother, distraught, angry and feeling betrayed after raising a son as a boy and watching him fall under the influence of the gay agenda, and on the other hand, Jerry, another victim of the gay agenda who accepts their false message that being gay is inborn and a homosexual has no choice but to pursue the dangerous “gay” lifestyle, which leads to an enormous increase in mortality.

Both are trying to do the right thing and both are wrong.

The mother feels the outrage at being betrayed by a disobedient son, but doesn’t see the main arguments against her son’s lifestyle, which is the danger (both physical and psychological) that it entails for the homosexual, the irresponsibility of misleading others to do likewise and the danger of societal acceptance of gay adoption of children, which denies a child its natural parents or at least a wholesome male-female role model. Added to this is the fact that schools are promoting this lifestyle in a manner that is unfair, portraying the homosexual as a victim who needs special protection but portraying the rejecter of homosexuality as mean and insensitive, failing to mention to the children in their care that the “gay” lifestyle carries a heavy price tag in terms of physical and mental health.

Jerry, of course, fails to see these things as well.

The result? Jerry Springer, the inadvertent promoter of death, comes off looking reasonable while the mother, the true victim of a scam of gargantuan proportions, comes off as uncaring and calloused. She misses the message that can be inferred from the Gospel: hate the sin but love the sinner.

The gay agenda wins.

And they win because Christians have been off-message in 2 ways: They either show contempt for gays or they accept the gay agenda that gay behavior is normal and that all of them are born to be gay (if you subscribe to Mission America’s alerts or read their web site you will see why that is not true).

Especially if you are a parent, please take the time to read the important message below from the Mission America coalition.

If you can, please donate to their site. Because of political correctness in the media, the church, the schools, government, and in society, groups like theirs are the only hope we have of getting the truth out.

God Bless.

Donald Hank
For additional comment or media, contact:
Buddy Smith –662-844-5036
Peter LaBarbera –630- 717-7631
Matt Barber –202–488-7000
Linda Harvey — 614-442-7998
Gary Glenn — 989-835-7978

National Coalition Urges Parents to Keep Kids Home on  “Day of Silence”

COLUMBUS,  OH — A nationwide coalition of Christian and pro-family groups is calling for  parents to keep children out of schools on Friday, April 25, 2008 – the day  when thousands of middle schools, junior highs, and high schools will observe  the 12th annual “National Day of Silence.” 

Buddy Smith of American Family Association asserts, “It’s outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom.   ‘Day of Silence’ is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality.  It’s time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day.”

“It amounts to educational malpractice for school officials to engage in one-sided homosexual activism,” said Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America. “Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination.  It is the height of  impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use  children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and  polarizing political agenda.”

“Day of Silence” is promoted by the Gay,  Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist group  that targets schools.  The event is typically organized by a school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) and is designed to pressure students to regard  homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior as normal and worthy.   Students and even some teachers remain silent throughout the school day, disrupting the teaching environment.  Protesters wear t-shirts and hand out “speaking cards” protesting alleged injustice, harassment, prejudice, and discrimination toward “LGBT” people and their “allies.”
“Social  activism does not belong in the classroom,” says Peter LaBarbera of Americans  for Truth. “Students would be far better served by reading a good book at home  – perhaps even the Bible – rather than being subjected to pro-‘gay’ indoctrination.”

This year, GLSEN adds a special twist to “Day of  Silence”: shameless exploitation of the recent tragic school shooting death of  California 8th grade student Lawrence King.  Los Angeles media report  that although the boy had been entrusted to the care of Casa Pacifica, a  residential center for “abused, neglected, and severely emotionally disturbed  children,” he had been permitted for the last two weeks to attend school in  feminine makeup, nail polish, and high-heeled boots.  The adult  guardians, school administrators, and teachers responsible for guiding and  protecting this precious troubled child failed him miserably; GLSEN fails him  again now by employing his violent death to manipulate and deceive millions of  children.

What should parents do?

1. Call your local schools and ascertain whether they officially or passively allow students to observe “Day of Silence.” For a list of schools expected to participate, check .
2. Be  sure to discover on what date the event is planned for your school. (The national date is April 25, but some schools observe DOS on a different date). 
3. Inform the school of your intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why.  (A sample letter is posted along with the school listings.) 
4. Explain to your children why you’re taking a stand:   Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity; it is sinful and unnatural.  No school should advance a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive sexual lifestyle to students. 
5. Pray with your children for sexual purity and for wisdom to lovingly counsel sexually confused teenagers in your own community.  Grieve for Lawrence King.
6. Encourage your church leadership to follow the bold example of Pastor Ken Hutcherson who is vocally opposing “Day of Silence” in his community in Redmond, Washington. Let your light shine by spreading the word to your church and neighbors, and explain that most school districts lose money for every absence.

Linda Harvey of Mission America urges parents to understand that “Homosexual activism creates an explosive situation in schools. I encourage parents to keep their children home on ‘Day of Silence.’ Let’s pray that in the future, schools will offer hope to students who are sexually confused by first telling them the truth.”

Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan, said: “The director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force broke homosexual activists’ code of  silence on the threat homosexual behavior poses to young people’s health when  he admitted this month that HIV ‘is a gay disease.’  GLSEN should cancel its celebration of that code of silence about the severe public health hazards  of homosexual behavior, and any school administrator who continues to stand  silent while enabling the promotion of such harmful behavior should be sued  for criminal negligence.”

The coalition includes: Abiding Truth Ministries,  American Family Association, AFA of MI, AFA of PA, Americans for Truth,  Christian Information Service, Christian Civic League of Maine, Concerned  Women for America, Culture Campaign, Defend the Family International, Exodus  Mandate, Illinois Family Institute, Indiana Voice for the Family, Informing  Christians, Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, Mission America, New Generation Christian Center, Parents’ Rights’ Coalition, Right March, Stephen Bennett Ministries, Values USA,  Watchmen on the Walls.


This message is from Mission America, , and is intended for news and educational purposes only.

Do you have your copy of Linda Harvey’s new book, “NOT MY CHILD: Contemporary Paganism and the New Spirituality”? Go to for more information.

Get your children out of the public schools NOW, or start today fighting anti-Christian, pro-homosexual teaching!

For the latest news about the homosexual agenda in our schools, go to our companion web site,

Please help support our work!

Mission America
PO Box 21836
Columbus, OH 43221

Mission America

See our Risk Audit, assessing schools on homosexuality.

To Unsubscribe:
or call us at (614) 442-7998.

The violent overthrow of America

Donald Hank By Donald Hank

Three of America’s enemies are positioning themselves to enter the White House, where one will continue the siege initiated by George W. Bush.

Hillary hates us because we didn’t go to Harvard.

The Obama’s hate us for our color — red, white and blue.  Barrack H. (don’t ask what it stands for) wants to be our first red president.

John McCain doesn’t hate us.  He just doesn’t know — or care — that we exist.

We are like the Travelocity gnome about to go over the falls.

Conservatives have always thought the left was planning a bloodless takeover of the US.

Takeover yes, bloodless, hardly.

The left sprouted in the bloodstained soil of France, coming to maturity in Russia and later China and elsewhere. Whenever it took root, millions died.

How will Americans die?

We’re already dying.  We just don’t associate these casualties with the left, partly because we can’t agree on the definition of a person and partly because the Bush administration managed to pull off a leftwing coup without being identified as a leftist.

But what is globalism if not neo-communism?  Old-fashioned Communists robbed rich people and gave to poor people, making nations poor.

Postmodern Communists rob from rich countries and give to poor countries, making the world poor.

Where’s the violence, you say?

There are 2 forms of violence due to leftist activism. The most obvious is abortion, which has produced as many casualties as Hitler and Stalin. The other form is more subtle and requires some explanation.

First we need to realize that when leftist historians report on events like the French, Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions, they excuse the violence, saying the leaders were noble but participants got out of hand. Voila, no such thing as intentional leftist-generated violence. Just collateral damage.

Stefane Courtois and comrades, authors of The Black Book of Communism, the itemized tally sheet of the Left’s casualties (about 100 million by their count), are unrepentant leftists, who think leftist ideology can exist independently of violence. They envision a kinder gentler Marxist utopia in the future.

The mantra that killings in leftist regimes are not attributable to ideology works like a charm.  Psychologically, Americans need to believe everyone is good, even brutal dictators.  Thus, it wasn’t hard to convince us of this absurdity. 

Another reason why casualties of the Left are hidden is that the Left has been successful in convincing us that the tilt of government toward “globalism” is actually part of a conservative agenda, alleging that the Bush administration wants open borders because capitalism needs cheap labor.  But if that’s true, why is it Ted Kennedy and Republicans in name only – the Republican left – who most enthusiastically support Bush’s amnesty campaign? 

But the left (Democrats and RINOs) has also succeeded in convincing the public that the alien invasion causes no violence.

Just like “people who got out of hand” in foreign leftist revolutions, many illegal immigrants have “gotten out of hand,” committing violent crimes and killing people in auto accidents (over 9,000 deaths annually from both causes) or through diseases and drugs.

Though shrugged off by the media, these deaths far exceed the American casualties in Iraq that the media constantly rub under our noses. 

But you will argue that these deaths are incidental and the government certainly does not intend to hurt you. But if you buy into this notion that the takeover of government by open border activists has not deliberately caused injury, then why are dangerous illegal aliens released here after serving time?  Why is an INS prison the site of one of the busiest naturalization offices on the East coast?

And how is it that a border guard can be killed by an alien criminal whom no one can extradite while those border guards who defend us are jailed?

Why do politicians oppose deportation when there’s a resurgence of formerly conquered diseases like leprosy, malaria or TB – including the multi-drug-resistant variety – precisely in areas of heavy illegal alien concentration?

How is it that the bulk of murder warrants in Los Angeles are for illegals, and yet the Los Angeles police department isn’t allowed to ask if a detained suspect is here illegally?

Isn’t it obvious that the government actually wants violent aliens to harm us?

What difference is there between releasing an angry mob to kill people in France, Russia and China and unleashing armies of criminal aliens to kill Americans?

Clearly there is an ideology behind this, based on the premise that Americans have too much — not only too much wealth, but even too much safety!  There is more to this than a desire to help the downtrodden.  There is a clear-cut thirst for revenge against the haves.  I had written that Maoism is, de facto, a movement intended not to help but rather to punish.  And our homegrown Maoism has been doing just that for many years.

I can’t tell you how many thousands of dollars I have lost over the years when companies that were then my clients started sending me affirmative action forms asking my sex and race.  Every time I returned one of these, confessing to being a white American male, I lost the client in question.  Every single time. 

Affirmative action wasn’t devised to help anyone.  It was born to punish.  I am in fact fined thousands of dollars every year for being who I am since I was born, and absurdly, my daughter and Hispanic wife – supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action – pay a heavy price for having a father and husband who is – male!

Likewise, if you are a resident of this country, you are being punished for living here.

Even immigrants don’t escape.

A Hispanic friend of ours used to argue that we can’t just deport illegal aliens.  He was horrified when I said we can and should.  He and his wife recently moved to a suburban community near Washington, DC.  She called recently and complained of violent crime in their neighborhood due to Hispanic gangs.  Though mostly illegal immigrants, when they’re jailed, the gang members are eventually released back into their neighborhood.  These friends have four children, including their anchor baby, and they fear for their safety.

They finally get it.

When will we?


President Lula, guilty by confession

Olavo de Carvalho is a respected journalist with a wide following in his native Brazil and is an increasingly popular public speaker in this country.  Mr. Carvalho provided Laigle’s Forum readers with an eye-opening article on the CFR and the Forum of Sao Paolo back on May 27, 2006, followed by several others including one linked by WorldNetDaily, which has been one of our biggest hits ever, garnering 3,400 hits the very first day it ran.

Laigle’s Forum is the first to present the following article to the English speaking world.

In this next article, Mr. Carvalho gives us a perspective of the international intrigue of the Sao Paolo Forum, an arm of the shadow government analogous to the SPP here in its intent to circumvent public input in matters affecting sovereignty.

President Lula, guilty by confession

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, September 26th, 2005

Translated by David Carvalho and Donald Hank

I should be grateful to President Lula. When practically all the national media makes an effort to cover up the activities of the Sao Paulo Forum or even to deny its existence, labeling as a “madman” or “fanatic” anyone who denounces them, cometh the very founder of the entity and does the job, proving by his own words the most depressing suspicions and some even worse.

The presidential speech on July 2, 2005, stated in the fifteen year anniversary of the Forum and reproduced in the government’s official site, is the explicit confession of a conspiracy against the national sovereignty, an infinitely more serious crime than all crimes of corruption perpetrated and covered up by the current government; a crime that, by itself, would justify not only impeachment but also the imprisonment of its perpetrator.

At the distance at which I find myself, I have only now become fully aware of this unique document, and yet the editors-in-chief of the major newspapers and of all the radio and TV news broadcasts in Brazil were there the whole time. Though aware of the speech since the date it was made, they remained silent, proving that their persistent hiding of the facts was not the result of distraction or pure incompetence: it was subservient, Machiavellian complicity with a crime, of which they expected to enjoy profits unknown.

The meaning of these paragraphs, once unearthed from the verbal garbage that wraps it, is crystal clear:

“As a function of the existence of the Sao Paulo Forum, comrade Marco Aurelio has played an extraordinary role in this effort to consolidate what we started in 1990… This was how we, in January 2003, proposed to our comrade, president Chavez, the creation of the Group of Friends to find a peaceful solution that, thank God, took place in Venezuela. And it was only possible thanks to political action between comrades. It was not a political action of either a State with another State, or one president with another president. Some will remember, Chavez attended one of the forums we held in Havana. And thanks to this relationship it was possible for us to build, with many political divergences, the consolidation of what took place in Venezuela, with the referendum that installed Chavez as president of Venezuela.

“In this way we could act, together with other countries, with our comrades of the social movement, of those countries’ parties, of the union movement, always using the relationship built in the Sao Paulo Forum so that we could talk without appearing to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place.”

What the President admits in these excerpts is that:

1. The Sao Paulo Forum is a secret or at least undercover entity (“built… so that we could talk without seeming to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place”).

2. This entity is actively involved in the internal politics of many Latin-American nations, making decisions and determining the course of events, at the fringes of all supervision by government, parliaments, justice and public opinion.

3. The so called “Group of Friends of Venezuela” was but an arm, agency or facade of the Sao Paulo Forum (“as a function of the existence of the Forum… we proposed to our comrade president Chavez.”..).

4. After being elected in 2002, he, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, while having abandoned pro forma his position as president of the Sao Paulo Forum, giving the impression that he was free to rule Brazil without commitments with ill-explained foreign alliances, kept working underground for the Forum, helping, for instance, to produce the results of the Venezuelan referendum of August 15, 2004 (“thanks to this relationship it was possible for us to provide the consolidation of what took place in Venezuela”), without giving his voters the slightest satisfaction for this.

5. The orientation in vital issues of Brazilian foreign policy was decided by Mr. Lula not as President of the Republic at meetings with his ministers, but as an attendee and advisor of underground meetings with foreign political agents (“it was a political action between comrades, not a political action either of one State with another, or of one president with another”). He put loyalty to his “comrades” above his duties as a president.

The President confesses, in short, that he subjected the country to decisions made by foreigners, gathered in conferences of an entity whose actions the Brazilian people would not be made privy to, much less understand.

The active humiliation of the national sovereignty could not be more evident, especially when one realizes that the attending entities of these decision-making meetings include organizations such as the Chilean MIR, kidnapper of Brazilians, and the FARC, Colombian narcoguerilla, responsible, according to its member Fernandinho Beira-Mar, for the annual injection of two hundred tons of cocaine into the national market.

Never before has an elected president of any civilized country showed such complete disdain for the Constitution, the laws, the institutions and the entire electorate, while giving all confidence, all authority, to a conclave swarming with criminals, in tracing the nation’s destiny and its relations with its neighbors behind the people’s backs. Never before in Brazil was there as brazen, complete and cynical traitor as Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.

The greatest proof that he consciously eluded the opinion of the public, keeping them ignorant of the operations of the Sao Paulo Forum, is that, as the elections approached, fearing my constant denunciation of this entity, he told his “advisor for international affairs,” Giancarlo Summa, to appease the newspapers by means of an official note from the Workers Party stating that the Forum was just an innocent debating club, devoid of any political action (see And now he boasts of the “political action of comrades,” performed with resources from the Brazilian government and hidden from Congress, justice and public opinion.

Compared to such an immense crime, what importance can the Mensalao and the like phenomena have but as a means of financing operations that are only part of the overall strategy of transferring national sovereignty to the secret authority of foreigners?

Can there be greater disproportion than between ordinary cases of corruption and this supreme crime for which they served as instruments?

The answer is obvious. But why then did many readily denounce the means while agreeing to keep covering up the ends?

Here the answer is less obvious. It requires presorting. The denouncers are divided into two types: (A) individuals and groups committed to the Sao Paulo Forum’s scheme, but not directly involved in the use of these illicit means in particular; (B) individuals and groups unrelated to both things.

The rationale of the former is simple, to whit: off with the rings, but keep the fingers. Once it has become impossible to keep hiding the use of illicit instruments, they agree to throw their most notorious operators under the bus, in order to keep perpetrating the same crime by other means and agents. The content and even the style of the charges leveled by these people reveal their nature as pure decoys. When they attribute the Workers Party corruption, which started as early as 1990, to settlements with the IMF signed in 2003 on, they show that their need to lie does not shrink even before the plain and simple material impossibility. When they cast the blame on some “group,” hiding the fact that the ramifications of the criminal structure extended from the Presidency of the Republic to the rural town halls, implicating practically the whole party, they prove that they have as much to hide as those who were charged at the time.

More complex are the motivations of group B. In part, it is composed of characters devoid of fiber, physical and moral cowards, who would rather focus on the lesser details for fear of seeing the continental dimensions of the overall crime. There is also the subgroup of the intellectually weak, who stake their bets on the “death of communism” nonsense and now, in order not to contradict themselves, feel obliged to reduce the greatest coup scam in the history of Latin America to the more manageable dimensions of an ordinary corruption scheme, depoliticizing the meaning of the facts and pretending that Lula is nothing more than a  Fernando Collor without a jet ski. There are those who, out of either opportunism or stupidity, collaborated way too much with the rise of the criminal party to power and now feel divided between the impulse to cleanse themselves of the stench of the bad company they kept, and the impulse to lessen the crime to avoid the burden of their complicity in it. There are also the pseudo-wise guys who aided and abetted the enemy, blinded by the insane illusion that it is more viable to defeat him by gnawing at him from the edges than by lunging a death blow in his heart. There are, finally, those who truly understand nothing of what’s going on and, parroting Brazilian speech patterns, just repeat what they hear, in hopes of blending in.

I earnestly ask all the flaming anti-corruption accusers of recent weeks – politicians, media owners, businessmen, journalists, intellectuals, judges, and military – to examine carefully their own consciences, if they have any left, to see into which of these subgroups they fall. Because, aside from those few Brazilians of valor who supported in timely fashion the charges against the Sao Paulo Forum, all the others will inevitably fall into one of them.

It would be absurd to blame only Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum for the Brazilian moral decay, forgetting the contribution they got from these fair-weather moralists, as eager to denounce the parts as they are to hide the whole picture. Nothing could have fueled national self-deceit more than this marvelous network of complicities and omissions born of motivations that, while varied, converge into the same result, namely, the creation of a false impression of transparent investigations, and a facade of normality and lawfulness even as the entire order crumbles, invisibly gnawed away from the inside.

The destruction of order and its replacement by “a new pattern of relationships between State and society,” decided in secret meetings with foreigners – such was Mr. Lula’s confessed objective. This objective, as he said in another part of the same speech, must be attained and consolidated “in a manner such that it can be sustained, regardless of who is governing the country.”

What is perceived from the behavior of Mr. Lula’s critics and accusers is that, in this general objective, he has already emerged victorious, regardless of the success or failure that he may have in the rest of his term. The new order whose name may not be spoken is already in place, and its authority is such that not even the president’s fiercest enemies dare to challenge it. All of them, in one way or another, have already committed themselves at least implicitly to put the Sao Paulo Forum above the Constitution, the laws and the institutions of Brazil. If they complain about looting, embezzlement, vote buying and bribes, it is precisely to avoid complaining about the transfer of national sovereignty to the continental conference of “comrades,” like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, the Colombian narcoguerillas and the Chilean kidnappers. It is like a rape victim protesting the damage to her hairdo, neglecting to mention, even politely, the rape itself.

Perhaps the deeds of Mr. Lula and his wretched Forum would not have wrought such vast damage in Brazil as this total inversion of proportions, complete destruction of moral judgment, and total corruption of the public conscience. Never before has such a profound agreement between accusers and accused been seen that would indulge the crime, denounced with so ado, so as to succeed in the overall objectives “without seeming to do so and so that people would not understand.”

Olavo de Carvalho is a correspondent for various Brazilian newspapers. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact the author at:

Churchians rob Christians of land and Bibles

Maybe you have noticed that there are a lot of groups out there who have used the gospel of Jesus Christ for a variety of purposes, such as getting political power, mostly on the Left these days, but chiefly for making money. Huge multi-million dollar churches dot the landscape from coast to coast, and this outward sign is not necessarily an indication of an inner religious fire, but often something quite sinister. Jesus warned us these things would happen in the last days.

Often these cultists use the term “emergent church” or “church growth movement.” For want of a better term, we can call these hordes of wolves in sheep’s clothing the Churchians.

Here is the story of how a cult is trying to destroy a group of Chinese believers. I have asked for further court documentation and was kindly provided, by one of the Chinese church leaders, with sufficient evidence that this is real. Let us pray that their wicked designs will be thwarted.

Donald Hank


by James Sundquist

In a major lawsuit, the Mid America District of the Christian &  Missionary Alliance (hereafter C&MA) was named by a group of former members of the Chinese Alliance Church of Colorado Springs. The C&MA is one of the largest Evangelical Protestant Christian denominations, with 2,010 C&MA churches in the U.S., and 440 in Canada, with approximately 417,000 members in the United States. The Plaintiff has alleged that the C&MA conspired to defraud and subsequently confiscate and convert their $650,000 church property and assets and emptied their approximately $18,000 in bank accounts, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A. The Defendant, C&MA Mid America District Headquarters office, is located in Omaha, Nebraska. C&MA National Church Ministries Vice President Rev. John Soper endorsed and approved both the closure and the sale of the church property in two letters.

This is not unique. The Chinese church is just one of the more recent victims of the C&MA’s Church Growth Movement Church Multiplication, Church Health formulas for measuring spirituality, and Small Group grand strategies being implemented in the U.S., and Canada to takeover and transform churches. After the C&MA had given the Chinese Alliance Church of Colorado Springs an ultimatum of 15 months to redevelop, the lawsuit alleges that they reneged on it in 3 months. After closing the church down, the C&MA wouldn’t even let them keep their Chinese translation Bibles and library (refusing to return them even upon request in writing). After about 18 months the C&MA put the property on the market and sold the property to a Karate company. Named in the lawsuit are: Christian & Missionary Alliance, Randall Burg, District Superintendent for the Mid America District of the C&MA, the Mid America District of the C&MA, and Dr. Robert Trempert, Interim Pastor just prior to the closing of the church. This C&MA District includes Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. The Plaintiff also alleges that the C&MA secured and conveyed the deed without informing the congregation, then used unfounded charges to evict the whole congregation, which was about 30 regular attendees, and closed down the church and threw them out on the street. It is also the intent of former members of this church to alert and warn all C&MA churches, the church at large, and the Asian community throughout the world, that this could happen to them too! We are grateful to the many members of the national media have already asked to run this story even before this press release went out. These Chinese Christians and how the C&MA applied the Reversion Clause of its constitution to this church feels like this a “mortgage made in Hell”…you have to make mortgage payments to the C&MA [or its own approved lender], including interest…then when the building is paid off in half of the 15 year mortgage, you the borrower get to (have to) give the C&MA lender the building and property too…what a deal!  Many of these older saints who came from Communist China where they were persecuted hoped that this could not happen in the U.S., let alone at the hands of the church.  They found out they were wrong! On July 1, 2006, members of The Chinese Alliance Church of Colorado Springs discovered that the locks on their building had been changed when attempting to attend a prayer meeting. One Sunday, July 2, 2006, the congregrants came to worship and found out they were evicted from their own building, with the knowledge and consent, the Alliance, MAD, Burg, and Trempet proceeded to lock the Chinese Church out of its own building. Instead of taking care of widows and the homeless, the C&MA leaders created them, while simultaneously blaming these victims. Someone did come to their rescue and hear their Chinese church’s SOS cries for help. There was a good Samaritan in Colorado Springs who showed great mercy and provided shelter for these approximately 30 fleeing Chinese refugee saints and helped them get back on their feet again, and that was Pastor David Fitzgerald and the Garden Ranch Baptist Church. Then the Garden Ranch Baptist Church gave immediate relief under emergency powers, then helped them redevelop church polity and comply with requirements of the State of Colorado and the IRS to start a new church…all in a period of about six months…without strings attached.

For complete report and documentary:




Rev. Wayne Spriggs, Eastern PA District Director, and Rev. Daniel R. Wetzel, Assistant Vice-President of C&MA Church Ministries has written the pastors of the Eastern Pennslyvania C&MA District, either directly or indirectly renouncing the press release I sent out from the Chinese Church in Colorado Springs, CO, above.  Since Mr. Wetzel has already written one C&MA District Superintendent, he will likely have written them all.

Contrary to what C&MA leaders would have you do, and that is hear the victims side of the story vs. just the perpetrators,  as good Christians and good Bereans, you should want to read the other side of the story for yourselves.  Therefore, Mr. Wetzel accuses me that “it is unlikely that any reputable media outlet will give serious attention to Sundquist’ assertions.”  Mr. Wetzel has committed libel and defamation of character against me.  First of all this is not my press release but was issued by the Chinese Church, with the contact person named as Keith Wong, who is also one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Furthermore, it is primarily a summary of the contents of the extensive affidavit filed at the Colorado Springs Courthouse.  Mr. Wetzel knows this as a top executive at C&MA Headquarters, because they too were served with the same papers filed by the attorneys.  So Mr. Wetzel knows he is not telling you the truth.  You ought to be able to obtain a copy yourself from the courthouse.  If not, I will email you a photocopy.  I have also informed the District Attorney in Colorado Springs who makes the final determination in who is criminally prosecuted that Mr. Wetzel has lied and published it.  The C&MA is in deep enough trouble already.  This letter from Mr. Wetzel will strike a crippling blow to his own credibility (and therefore C&MA) before both the upcoming civil trial as well as any criminal trial should the DA decide to prosecute.  The local media in Colorado as well as the national media will also be apprised of Mr. Wetzel’s letter. Well my “assertions” are direct citations from both parties.  As to Mr. Wetzel postulation that any reputable media outlet giving me serious attention, I invite you to read my bio on my website to see if that is true, such as Southwest Radio Church, VYC America, and many others.  The Wall Street Journal ran a front page story, based on my assertions and exposed Rick Warren, in which I was a principal consultant for them.  As to this story, one major media outlet has already requested running the story.  Even if the media were to trash the press release as Mr. Wetzel has done, the media will do their own due diligence and read the file court papers as proof that the press release reflects the court filing.  And they won’t be afraid to tell the community and their readers what they discover! 

Don’t let Mr. Wetzel prevent you from doing your own due diligence on this story which is about to explode nationally in both secular and the Christian media.  Mr. Spriggs has told you that what I wrote in the above commentary about him is “troubling.”  But what should trouble you is not what I said, but his own threats…read it for yourselves.  You do not need to be aware of me or be warned about me.  But you better take heed what the C&MA leaders can do to you, if what is cited in the full report is any indication.  You should also be warned about C&MA pastors who chose to retaliate against me vs. extending a life preserver to the SOS calls from the drowning Chinese Christians in Colorado. Then do what your conscience tells you to do and Scripture, not simply what C&MA leaders dictate!

Liars who boast of lying

By Donald Hank

The next column, by Olavo de Carvalho, scheduled to appear within a day or two, will need some introduction. First, for those of you who follow the US media, I need to point out that Lula is the president of Brazil. The only thing said about him recently was from a few months ago when President Bush visited Brazil and made nice with Lula, promising him the US would buy a few billions of dollars worth of his ethanol. No, you the fuel buyer did not agree to this. Your nice president agreed for you. You will buy.

What the press didn’t tell you at that time or any time, and what Bush could care less about, is that President Lula, a communist sympathizer, is one of the biggest shysters on the South American continent and has aided and abetted not only Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, mightily helping to get him elected, but also the narcoterrorists and kidnappers of the FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Army) and other criminal organizations on the continent.

Lula did this in part through the Forum of Sao Paolo, which he himself originally denied ever existed, even though he was one of the most influential organizers. Recently, however, as Olavo de Carvalho points out, Lula now not only admits it exists but that he was there and made great efforts to undermine democracy precisely by means of this instrument. Although I trust Mr. Carvalho’s painstaking research, I needed to see this with my own eyes, so I went and checked the official web site publishing Lula’s speech, which admits this. Sure enough. It is all there just as quoted in Mr. de Carvalho’s article (see below).

Now nota bene: President Bush and his fellow neocons also denied the existence of meetings held in Canada to promote the North American Union. He knows we know he was there, because the meetings were reported in the world press. But he denies – or denied (but later admitted) – that there are plans to embark on a North American Union.

Like fellow globalist Lula, Bush will almost certainly some day boast of his success in pulling the wool over the eyes of constituents and subjecting the US to a continental government that will spell the demise of US sovereignty. Globalists are true believers in their cause. Those among them who call themselves Christian point to numerous statements by “Christian” leaders denouncing “nationalism,” based on tenuous interpretations of scripture, failing to point out that by nationalism, what they actually mean is sovereignty, a vital component in the existence of all nations! Thus these pious leaders tell us, or at least imply, that closed borders are un-Christian and the entire Third World has a claim to a piece of our territory and our national product – your income. Thus, for all of their piety, these clerics are traitors.

The globalist pattern described by Mr. de Carvalho below, namely, lying and then admitting one lied, is bound to repeat itself here.

As I have said before, globalism is the new communism.

It may surprise some readers to read that, as mentioned above, President Lula, after carefully concealing the very existence of the leftist Forum of Sao Paolo, would suddenly come out and vaunt his role in it as well as the duplicity of the Forum organizers, thus:

“In this way we could act, together with other countries, with our comrades of the social movement, of those countries’ parties, of the union movement, always using the relationship built in the Sao Paulo Forum so that we could talk without appearing to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place.”

What struck me is that the initial cover-up displays the same pattern as that of the NAFTA Superhighway, a similar globalist venture, which was at first denied by all those complicit in its planning, but then showed up on a web site maintained by the Canadian government.

Ron Paul quotes the SPP web site as admitting:

“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda.”

But most stunning of all is Bush’s admission, despite constant subsequent denial, at Baylor University, that a union along EU lines is in fact in the works.

Why do leftwing activists, whether the old-fashioned communist, or the post-modern globalist variety, first lie and then admit, nonchalantly, or even boastfully, that they lied?

No explanation is possible for such seemingly irrational behavior, unless, that is, one admits the monstrous hypothesis that the global elite is the new communist elite. In this case, the following excerpt, the concluding chapter of the Communist Manifesto, explains this odd behavior:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

Of course, if you set out to subjugate an entire nation to globalist policies, then you must tippy-toe at first. But then when the trap has sprung, as it did in Europe, for example, you lower the boom.

Will the North American Union be achieved by forcible overthrow?

The answer is yes, if we let it happen. Force does not necessarily presuppose violence. Forceful overthrow is the injection of countless willing minions like the McCains, the Kennedy’s, Clintons and the Bushes, into the political process by subterfuge, using polished marketing techniques in the media, independently of the will of the electorate, and then simply watching them do their destructive work. Conspicuously, conservatives have no candidate this fall, and this is by design, not accident.

The media, including the radio talk shows and Fox News, all had a hand in suppressing the truth about the impending North American Union, and the highly suspicious furtiveness of the SPP meetings in Canada.

They sanitized it, marginalizing as dangerous radicals anyone who dared to speak out against it.

That is how you get a job done when you are determined to overthrow the will of the people, whether here or in Brazil.

Once Olavo de Carvalho’s article appears at this site, we will have a better idea of how nations are taken over by the power elites on the Left.

It is up to us as a free nation to resist.

But do we have the will or the wisdom to do so?

Richard Viguerie: fight is just beginning

Richard Viguerie is a great conservative and the following is good advice, worth reading. But he leaves out something that deserves attention: third parties. If conservatives continue to battle and, in 4-6 years, still lose because of the hard-headedness of top-ranking GOP leaders, then that should signal to us that it is time to exit the GOP. I have already committed myself to the following promise:

If John McCain does not back away from his promise to amnesty all illegal immigrants currently living in the US, then I will vote for a third party candidate, most likely the Constitution Party’s pick. The radio talk show hosts and Fox are up in arms about the New York Times’ latest smear against John McCain. I could care less. This does not generate one bit of sympathy in me. Sorry, John. You have made it abundantly clear, with McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, that you don’t care about America. Patriotic Americans will not squander their pity on you either.

Dear Reader, if you think my words may be too harsh, then please view the following video to see where Mr. McCain and the pack of RINOs leading today’s GOP (to say nothing of the Democrats) are leading us.

Donald Hank


by Richard A. Viguerie

The time has come for conservatives to move on, to shift priorities, and to work to elect conservatives at all levels now and in the years to come.  

For too long, conservatives have done most of the work necessary to elect Republican candidates, but, once elected, most of those Republicans have ignored conservatives’ concerns or have opposed conservatives outright. 

These Republicans have taunted us: “What are you going to do?  Vote for the liberal Democrats? Calm down and grow up, and keep supporting us even while we trash you and people like you and much of what you believe in.”

However, there is a third course – neither blind loyalty to an arrogant, out-of-touch Republican Establishment nor acquiescence in the election of liberal Democrats. We can shift our priorities to electing principled conservatives, and let GOP anti-conservatives fend for themselves.

We can stop – stop! – providing any support to organizations and candidates that do not follow conservative principles.   For example, no conservative should give a penny to the various Republican campaign committees at the national level. Let them rely on the country club Big Business wing of the party, whose interests they represent and whose candidates they give most of their support. (Don’t worry; they won’t starve.)

Conservatives’ resources are finite. We must stop supporting the Republican Establishment, and, instead, support the principled conservatives who need and deserve our help. 

This is a long-term strategy, rooted in this reality: It is from the ranks of the lower public and party officials that most future conservative leaders will come – perhaps, someday, another conservative president in the philosophical image of Ronald Reagan.

Last week, a mainstream conservative, State Senator Andy Harris, unseated U.S. Representative Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland in the Republican primary.   (Gilchrist was elected in 1992 as a mainstream candidate but had moved toward the radical left.) It wasn’t the first time Harris challenged an incumbent liberal Republican; that’s how he won his state Senate seat in the first place.

Across this country, there are outstanding conservatives like Andy Harris who are running for Congress or state senate or some other office. For example, Woody Jenkins, who narrowly lost a U.S. Senate race in 1994, is running for Congress in the March 8 special election in Louisiana.

Unfortunately, in the presidential campaign, the GOP has once again rejected the strategy that won 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984: the strategy of uniting social, economic, and national-security conservatives behind a conservative presidential candidate. But that doesn’t mean that conservatives should or will sit on their hands. It just means that, in 2008, they will shift their work and their resources to conservative candidates up and down the line. And, in November, conservatives and Establishment Republicans, and pro- and anti-McCain Republicans, can come together to elect those conservatives who are running on the Republican ticket.

It is in the races and political futures of Andy Harris and Woody Jenkins and leaders like them that conservatives should invest their time and effort and money, this year and for the foreseeable future. 

For conservatives to finally come to power – with conservatives in the White House and in the majority in Congress and in state legislatures and in other offices – will take a long time.   Right now, we have a thin bench. We don’t have the county committee members who can run for county chairman, the county chairmen who can run for state chairman; we don’t have the city council members who can run for state representative and then state senate, the state senators who can run for Congress or for governor, the governors or senators who can run for president. 

It will take six to eight years to rebuild the conservative movement, and at least that long for conservatives to hold both the White House and the leadership positions in Congress and at other levels. It is not a journey that will be completed overnight, but it is a journey we must begin today.

If you are a conservative, don’t just complain. Do something. 

  • First, don’t assume that your representatives at various levels in party positions and public office are conservatives because they say they are, or because they use conservative rhetoric. Plenty of politicians who know how to sound conservative. There are many “sort of” conservatives who, in their hearts, believe in the conservative philosophy, but are just not willing to rock the boat. It might make them look bad; it wouldn’t be prudent. The kind of conservative leader we must raise up is someone whose record demonstrates a willingness to take on the party Establishment and make every honorable effort to beat them.
  • Become a delegate to your party’s county convention, state convention, or national convention, and encourage like-minded people to do the same, including family members and friends, neighbors and co-workers, and fellow members of religious or civic groups. If you can’t be a delegate – if, say, the filing deadline has passed – attend anyway if you can, or learn how the process works so you can be a delegate the next time.
  • Consider running for party office or public office. Don’t fail to run just because there’s an incumbent in place, or because some other person is already running. Even if you don’t win this year, you can pave the way for future victories. Who knew, when an obscure history professor named Newt Gingrich lost races for Congress in 1974 and 1976, that he would one day be the first conservative Speaker of the House? 
  • If you do not run yourself, recruit someone else to run, or find someone already running whom you can help. Contribute financially, help raise money, and otherwise get involved as a volunteer.
  • Begin to build an organization – something that can be as simple as a mailing list or a telephone list of people in your area who agree with you on conservative issues.   Get some political experience, and help other conservatives get experience; the greatest advantage that the Establishment has is that its members know little things like when meetings are going to be held and what opportunities for political advancement are available. (Sometimes a small effort can have a major impact. I know of one city where most Republicans are conservatives, but the Establishment makes sure that only a few people – their kind of people – know when the meetings are held to pick the candidates. A few hundred phone calls or e-mails by conservatives before each such meeting would be enough to fix that problem.)

Yes, conservatives will not have the White House for the next four years. But any one election – even a presidential election – is just one battle in a long, long war. Conservatives must follow the advice of Winston Churchill: Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never.

One Liberty Guarantees the Rest: Original Sin, the Government, and the Right to Bear Arms

By Anthony Horvath

(For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at

With yet another school shooting, this time in NIU, along with the so-called ‘meat cleaver’ killer in New York, we can take a few minutes again to revisit the question of the nature of man. Those who read my blog or my forum know that I firmly believe that the right to bear arms is extremely important. Incidents like the NIU event don’t even surprise us anymore. However, it hit a little close to home for me because I have former students who attend there and have friends who know people there.

Naturally, pundits and candidates moved quickly to capitalize on the event. Hillary Clinton informed the nation that she once shot a duck while hunting and so “she is a supporter of the second amendment.” As if the right to bear arms meant only the right to hunt! Democrats tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in those terms while conservatives tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in terms of a right to self-defense.

In this article I wish to point out that the 2nd Amendment encompasses both of those emphases but is really concerned with something else. It is not about a right to defend ourselves against criminals but rather a right to defend ourselves if it is the government itself that is criminal.

Many states with conceal and carry laws still forbid the carrying of weapons at schools and churches and government buildings. With shootings at schools, churches, and government buildings continuing, one begins to suspect that laws do not stop madmen but only keep honest men and women from fighting back.

I didn’t use to think this way. I have come to this perspective through two twin routes that I believe that Christians in particular should reflect but should be considered by any thinking individual. Gun legislation is not the only thing affected by these twin strands.

In the first place, we need not go far to understand that the root problem is that people themselves are dangerous. Christians call this the doctrine of ‘original sin’ and it is the only doctrine that can be empirically demonstrated. If you understand that people are not intrinsically good but rather incline bad, then you will construct policies that reflect that reality. For most legislators, however, the idea that people might want to do something just because they are evil doesn’t seem to occur.

As I came to grips with the reality of ‘original sin’ I realized that many of my liberal ideas just had to go. It isn’t even that the ideas were bad or immoral. Simply put, if they had been carried out it would be a recipe for disaster. Abuse is inevitable. My ideas presume the best intentions all the time mixed with sincere, honest, and intelligent people carrying them out. This assumption is not justified.

Let us take a minute to tend to the second strand which might not be as objectionable because of its religious implications but still takes us to the same place.

One of the first things I discovered as I began grappling with the facts of history is that the biggest killer of all is not the mugger or rapist or even the serial killer. The biggest killer, hands down, is government. There is a terrific website which helps lay this out and I thoroughly recommend it:

At that web page you will see documented the atrocities of the last century as well as back into recorded history. Naïve atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins worry their little heads about the dangers of religion, but it is clear as you look at the facts that religion is just one of many pretexts by which power hungry men assert themselves over other men. For example, in the Crusades, over three centuries the site says that 1,000,000 died. That figure isn’t just wholesale slaughter, but includes famine and disease, and includes also the deaths of the Crusaders themselves at the hands of their foes. By contrast, in the 20th century… so just one century, not three, China created 75,000,000 dead bodies. The USSR created 61,000,000.

That is the last century, friends. According to the Democide site, there were 262,000,000 people who died either directly or indirectly but still as the result of Government. Rwanda’s genocide occurred in recent memory and within reach of the International community to have done something about it, but it was tribal concerns that drove the slaughter, not ‘religion.’

No, we must come to grips with the fact that throughout history throughout the whole world, the biggest threat to man is not merely Man but Man in Charge.

The need for checks and balances is obvious. However, if you can’t count on the men and women in government to always act in the interest of the people and that even in many cases they will pursue their own interests, even resorting to murder if necessary, what kind of ‘check’ might possibly exist on people of power?

An armed populace is the only thing an armed government could possibly fear when ‘best intentions’ and ‘sincerity’ is lacking. We talk about having the right to defend ourselves when confronted with gunmen in our schools, malls, and councils, and certainly there is a place for that. However, no gunman is as dangerous as the institution of Government itself.

Here a common protest is that it simply is not realistic to presume that in our day and age, in our civilization, the calamities we bore witness to throughout the world could ever possibly happen here in the United States. Perhaps not today. However, the right to bear arms is the right that ensures we keep all of our other rights. It is the liberty that actualizes all other liberties. If this liberty is diminished, and the country changes in twenty years, it will be too late to reclaim it. At least, too late without first paying our own price of tens of millions dead.

We operate on the assumption that all will continue on as it has been continuing on. However, as the riots in LA show – or even as riots after the win of a professional sports team! – civilization is only skin deep. What’s more, the influx of illegal immigrants to the south is not coming ideologically neutral. Many are coming with the ideologies that expressly led to some of the atrocities of the last century. In forty years, it won’t just be the ethnic make-up of the country at risk, but potentially also the ideological one.

It is an uncomfortable thought to consider that we might want our government to be worried about its own citizens. We might think to ourselves that we don’t want our police officers, for example, to be concerned that someone might fight back. After all, we have courts, right? History shows us that there exists a thing called a mock trial. Granted, we are far off from such things in our country right now. To keep them far off for the foreseeable future, it is important that our government has a healthy fear of those it rules.

That brings us full circle. Why should power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely? What is it about Man that makes this so? What is the best explanation? If it is, as I have said because man is inclined towards wickedness, then we might wonder if there is something to the claim that we need a savior. Jesus does not promise utopia. He doesn’t even encourage the pursuit of one. However, perhaps when we grapple with utopian ideals we’ll come to see that man is hopelessly sick and needs a Doctor and that Doctor cannot be Government.

Anthony Horvath is the author of Fidelis and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  (For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at

The good, the bad and the grotesque in Europe

 UK suicide town

A small town in England has had a disproportionately high suicide rate. Here is the story of the latest victims. At the risk of appearing overly simplistic, let us not forget that England has long abandoned its Christian roots. Nothing is more demoralizing than nihilism, and that is all that many young people are left with nowadays.

Kosovo declares its independence

Kosovo, cultural center of Christian Serbia, is now in Muslim hands thanks to Bill Clinton and his “holy” war against Christianity.

President Bush, always eager to please his fellow politicians on the Global Left, jumped on the float of celebrants and cheered the new “nation” on its way to independence.

Keen observers know that the support from major EU member states and the US is, to say the least, based on a grotesque interpretation of international law, and that, ironically, many of the people who shouted foul when the US invaded Iraq are now applauding this latest action to carve out an independent state from Serbia, which has cultural and religious ties to Kosovo.

The following site shows that the genocide in the former Yugoslavia was by no means a one-sided war against Muslims, as was falsely represented in the press. Open this next link only if you have a very strong stomach. (Don’t say we didn’t warn you).

Pat Buchanan said it best in this article:

Some news is good news

Although we focus on news items that are useful to the extent that people can participate in their outcome through the democratic process, there are some welcome positive trends at places.

We have railed against the EU and will do so in the future, but let us play the devil’s advocate and admit that the EU sometimes helps overcome injustices that individual nations perpetrate.

One such example is the home-schooling issue in Germany, where the national courts consistently rule against the parents in favor of some of the most boring and autocratic schools on the continent, where the brightest and best are precisely the ones targeted for harassment by teachers and classmates alike, and where Albert Einstein got bad grades until he emigrated to Austria, simply because dissidents are not tolerated by the iron-booted teachers, and yet, where EU leaders have shown sympathy for home-schooled students and their parents. Here is one instance where we would hope the EU gets the upper hand and keeps it.

Another example of justice coming from one part of Europe when none was to be had in another nation is the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch parliamentarian who had fled her native Somalia to escape brutality at the hands of her own Muslim family and others. Ali had bravely campaigned against European Islamic terrorism and had collaborated with the slain Theo van Gogh to make a movie portraying the violence of European Muslim thugs. Van Gogh’s slayer had left a bloody knife at the scene with a note stating that Ali was next on the hit list.

In a shameful display of abject dhimmitude, the managers of Ali’s apartment complex evicted her for posing a security risk, and since her move to the US, the Dutch government has refused to provide her with the security due her as a former parliament member.  She is currently employed by the American Enterprise Institute. She has meanwhile been offered protection by the French government. Under Sarkozy, the French have started showing a bit more spine than other nations, like the heretofore craven Holland.

Finally, as we mentioned previously, Iraqi Christians are fleeing their homeland for fear of brutal reprisals ranging from church bombings/burnings to death threats and murder, but we didn’t mention to where they are fleeing. It seems many are repairing to Sweden, and particularly to the town of Sodertalje. So many Iraqis have flocked to the town that the authorities have finally called for a halt to the ingress, unable to sustain these immigrants economically.

So while Americans tend to think of Europeans as anti-Christian, and many of the policies pursued there are precisely that, many people there are still willing to do the right thing.

Perhaps they are seeking redemption. They may find it at last.

Lethal Delicacy

 by Olavo de Carvalho

At the time of this writing, the Republican Party is torn between Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee and war veteran John McCain.  The Democrats have not yet decided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The American electoral picture is thus divided between three enigmas and a frightening certainty.  No one has the faintest idea of what to expect from the first three should they be elected, but the last has the resume necessary to complete the job of dismantling the American presidency, a job that was started with brilliant success by her husband with the aid of Chinese spies, thieving lobbyists, Miss Monica Lewinsky, and drug dealers of the FARC — who struck it rich with the famous Colombia Plan — and last but not least, a plethora of intelligence agents placed in the CIA to serve the Clinton family instead of the American state.  The major advantage in favor of Hillary Clinton is that, as Paulo Francis would say, everyone had already seen this movie and knew who would die at the end.  At a time of such uncertainty, this could generate some votes.

Huckabee presents himself as the “social conservative,” but at the same time supports stem-cell research, putting his voters in a major quandary.  What he has in his favor is that nothing as catastrophic is expected of him as is of the other three.  If he manages to prove he is harmless, he might still have a chance against McCain.

Only John McCain knows what is going on inside his head. He has already proven he is capable of changing his mind in an instant and throttling forthwith anyone who opposes the change.  Conservatives say he is the most Democratic of the Republicans, that he is impossible to clearly distinguish from Senator Ted Kennedy, and that he can scarcely suppress an orgasm whenever he sees a tax increase; but on the left there are those who swear he is to the right of George W. Bush, that he is the hawk’s hawk, and the first thing he will do in the presidency is bomb Iran and unleash World War III (or IV).  Perhaps all of this is true, but certainly, none of it is good.  Of the four candidates, he is still the one best positioned to be elected, but it is a sure thing that many of his constituents will vote for him in fear and trembling, realizing they are doing so only to prevent one of the parties from dominating the presidency along with the Senate, the House and the majority vote in the Supreme Court, making it omnipotent (Americans instinctively hate this).

As for Senator Obama, he is certainly less interesting than the reasons many Americans have for voting for him.  If someone is constantly accused of a defect to the point of developing a complex about it, he will most likely wind up with the opposite defect.  If applied skillfully, the trick is almost foolproof.  Accuse a guy of being a skinflint and he will become a compulsive spendthrift.  Accuse him of being a male chauvinist and he will wind up being henpecked.  While racism in the USA has been a very geographically limited phenomenon, the whole country has been accused so much of racism that Americans in general wound up sacrificing their dignity to a grotesque fad of political correctness.  And now many of them feel obliged to vote for Barak Hussein Obama only to show that they are nice.  The senator speaks beautifully, but so far no one has been able to discern in his discourse anything that remotely resembles an issue.  In the most substantive scenario, there appears to be some promise of a campaign similar to that of his opponent Hillary Clinton, if not that of the Republican candidates.  Like McCain, he promises to deliver Osama bin Laden’s head, that is, of course, if he can find it.  Like Mrs. Clinton, he promises free medical care for everyone (not only for the poor, handicapped and aged), but without ever thinking of explaining from whom he will get the money to do this, or for that matter, how he will fill the gap in the budget, which is already reckoned in the trillions.  The senator has specialized in adolescent exhortations of the type “we’re going to change the world,” because he knows that no one expects him to actually do something in the presidency, only that he’ll be there as a symbol.

A symbol of what?  The ancient Latins said nomen est omen, “the name is prophecy.”  Barak Hussein means “blessed descendent of the Prophet,” and there is conclusive evidence that its bearer is lying when he says he was never a Muslim (Daniel Pipes made that clear here and here).  It is more or less as if, in the midst of the Vietnam war, the USA had elected as its president a guy named John Paul Ho Chi Minh, educated in Hanoi, the son of a party member, who swore he had never been a Communist and became offended when anyone doubted it.  Obama’s candidacy is a calculated provocation, serving as a gauge to assess the depth of the acquired habit of politically correct self-censorship now infused in the minds of Americans willing to be thrown into the oven to avoid offending the cook.

A significant detail illustrates this to a tee: when the senator listens to the national anthem, he does not place his right hand on his heart as protocol demands but literally shields his private parts with both hands, and everyone feels too inhibited to say that this is an insult.  A similar test was conducted in Bill Clinton’s time.  The president took the liberty of transforming the White House into a brothel, lied shamelessly and cried right wing conspiracy whenever anyone thought ill of anything.  The air of indignation on Democrats’ faces when they defended the scoundrel’s honor was touching.  In both cases, the most cynical ban on perceiving the obvious is imposed in the name of morality, instilling in public opinion the habit of revolutionary inversion.  All of this seems quite extravagant, but it is a masterpiece of high precision psychological engineering.

The panorama of this election is dismal in all aspects.  Mitt Romney displayed the stature of a statesman precisely in his withdrawal speech.  He said the present election was about major issues, not administrative routines.  Never has the USA had to decide on such grave matters with such lightweight brains to bear the responsibility.  The disproportion between the problems and the cast of characters is tragicomical, but the comedy will pass away and the tragedy will become reality.

The blame for the present situation is shared equally between the Democrats, who put their own political ambitions ahead of the security of the USA, and George W. Bush, who refused to notice this, preferring to embark the country on an illusory national union against the foreign enemy.  The union didn’t last three weeks.  Any intelligent observer could have seen this, but Bush staked everything on the patriotism card without noticing that the patriotism of his adversaries was completely fake.

In the American tradition, public officials, particularly higher ranking ones, have always been proud to serve the State, regardless of which party was in power.  Since the Clinton era, the Democratic Party has broken with this tradition, supporting, in the bureaucratic network, militants who served the party, not the state, the people or the nation.  We also saw this happening in a certain country.  Isn’t it the same thing?  And we all know how it ended.  Since 9/11, George W. Bush’s war plans have been boycotted from within by the clintonistas in the State Department and the CIA, who thus produced unsustainable situations, the blame for which was shifted to the president.  The story is told in detail in the book by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Shadow Warriors, the Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender (Crown Forum, New York, 2007), and anyone who does not know it will never understand what is happening today in the USA.  Refusing to acknowledge evil is just as shameful as what caused it.  George W. Bush incurs the costs and responsibility of having deserted the internal battle through the subterfuge of an overseas war.  Bush’s timidity (or surrender) destroyed it all. “Par délicatesse j’ai perdu ma vie” [through delicacy I lost my life], said Rimbaud.  But this prophecy, unfortunately, applies not only to the person of the current American president.  It is an entire people who risk misfortune to avoid the indiscretion of naming the names of their enemies.

Translated by Donald Hank (

The author, Olavo de Carvalho is a correspondent for various Brazilian newspapers. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact the author at: