Peaceniks, appeasers seize Constitution Party Convention

How to rig a convention, relegate your party to permanent irrelevance, and maybe kill your country

by Charles R Lewis

It’s April 27, 2008, and America’s faint flicker of hope is walking a tightrope over an abyss of one world totalitarian socialism.  Beneath one side of the chord lies the in-your-face, virtually identical Marxist, oppressive policies of the three-headed HillabaMcCain, a hazard by now identifiable, ironically, to just about anybody outside the government-schooled American majority.

The other side appears at first glance more inviting to the rest of us, but it’s a disguise, the work of the RonPaul/AlexJones axis, which gets our confidence by informing us of a large body of urgent facts unavailable in the mainstream media or even the conservative talk circuit, then betrays that confidence by

(1) converting us into hypocrites who blind ourselves to the alarmingly un-Christian policies of that faction’s central figure (see http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/04/ron-paul-and-chuck-baldwin-matter.html),

(2) coaxing us into giving great power to the far left via our chanting of the most agonizingly illogical, most distant from the truth traditional mantras of the communists about our country and her military and weapons industry that are just about the only institutions that have kept us free lo these many decades,

(3) brainwashing us into swallowing whole the group’s fatal foreign policy, which amounts to feeding our friends (such that remain) to our enemies, and

(4) upending the candidacies of the few genuine visionary patriots (Tom Tancredo. Alan Keyes) in the race.

If you doubt any of the above (especially the last point), I wish you had been with me (along with several other SaveAmericaSummit – SAS – members) in Kansas City this week at the Ron Paul Cult Lovefest referred to euphemistically as the Constitution Party (CP) National Convention..  The pertinent speeches consisted essentially of the message that the party had wanted to nominate Libertarian Populist Ron Paul, but that he’d turned them down, and that therefore they chose to nominate Paul’s hand-picked surrogate, even though that individual had next to zero credentials.no name recognition or following, and no chance of mustering any significant endorsements, and figured to just maybe get as much as 1% of the popular vote in this year when America has everything to lose and no candidate for conservatives to support.

…Which might make sense on some level if the party didn’t have the brilliant, solidly constitutionalist, and fabulously eloquent Dr Alan Keyes (whom the CP itself had wooed to leave the GOP specifically to seek the party’s presidential nomination) on hand, ready and willing.  Keyes is noted for being excluded from the Republican debates the three times he’s run for that party’s nod – for the simple reason he tends to win them all hands down, according to most observers (and because he’s a genuine patriotic Christian conservative, and the GOP simply can’t have that).

Keyes is a national conservative icon (he had won the party’s online poll – among rank and file members – by a landslide).  Major wags (with names like Farah, Coulter, Boortz, Limbaugh, Schlafly, Levin, Dobson) who’ve burned their bridges with John McCain, pretty much all know and revere Alan Keyes and would at some point have had to endorse him, if only to maintain their credibility.  And behind them would almost certainly have followed masses of disaffected and disenfranchized conservatives, and a new major party just might have emerged.

But instead, the CP chose Pastor Chuck Baldwin, whose claim to fame is having garnered all of 150,000 votes nationwide as the party’s vice presidential nominee in ’04, and whose presidential aspirations can be best characterized as a wish to become the Neville Chamberlain of the War Against Islamic Terrorists And Their Bolshevik And Globalist Sponsors (WAITATBAGS, if you will).

The handwriting was on the wall from the start this week for Alan, witness his icy reception at the platform committee meetings, where the Keyes people tried in good faith to reconcile his minor differences to the satisfaction of both sides.  As Keyes recounted it, not only was the committee unwilling to change one jot or tittle, it wasn’t even willing to discuss any of them.  I’ll give you one example:

SAS had asked its reps on the committee to try to insert the concept of “oil” (ever heard of that?) into the energy plank, from which it was missing.  A delegate from Alaska (the one state that was to give all of its votes to Keyes) beat them to it, and our Greg Thompson emerged satisfied that the “unintended omission” (as CP National Chairman Jim Clymer had described it in an on-air chat with me a couple weeks earlier) would be remedied.  The document, however, was later distributed with the same flaw.

At the platform’s presentation for general approval, I went to the microphone to address this.  I told the assemblage that I wasn’t asking for specific mention of ANWR (or the rest of Alaska, with its vast reserves and willing populace), or the Caribbean (which Cuba and China are currently depleting), or the North Pole (rightfully ours, but which President Bush is busy trying to cede to Russia, via the Law of the Seas Treaty), or our failure to approve the building of a new refinery in over thirty years…Or even, given the fact that Dr Jerome Corsi – who’d helped discover that petroleum is not an exhaustible “fossil fuel,” but a virtually infinitely available substance from the earth’s mantel – was to speak the next day, that the currently accepted premise is a lie concocted apparently to restrict our movements in the coming police state…

No, I was just asking that the word “oil” be added to the platform’s list (consisting of just about every other form of energy). of energy forms which the platform stipulated should be free from government prohibition of the exploitation.  I did, though, pose the question as to how high gas prices had to get before the party decided it was time to allow us to drill for our own soil instead of ransoming it from the terrorists and communists.  A voice rang out from across the  ballroom (which an unconfirmed report later told me was that of CP founder Howard Phillips – more on him later) to the effect that I should not be allowed to speak, as I was not an official delegate (more on that state of affairs later, as well).  The matter died there.

As the issue had been raised and rejected in committee, we have nothing to conclude but that the Constitution Party is firmly against domestic oil production.  Its overall position on energy is approximately that of John McCain.

A platform thoroughly hostile to Keyes (whose views on the issues match those of SAS better than do those of any other candidate of any party this election year) having emerged, it was time for the presidential nominating process to begin.  Phillips, who had been scheduled to address the convention on general topics, also wished to give the nominating speech for Baldwin.  He was told he could combine the two speeches, in opening the nominating process.

Phillips proceeded to launch into a lengthy diatribe that amounted to a vicious, capricious character assassination of Dr. Keyes.  He accused Keyes of being everything from a neocon to a carpetbagger from the Republican Party who just wanted to exploit the CP for his own ends (conveniently forgetting that it was the party that had invited Alan).  And the fact that Alan didn’t want to simply hand over Iraq to the terrorists – well, that went totally against what the party was all about, you see.

The venomous tirade was so over the top that Clymer (a respect-worthy, gentlemanly individual) actually took time to apologize for Phillips’ “denigration of an honorable man.”  But seeds had been planted.

Phillips’ soliloquy had taken up so much time – and there were so many frivolous candidates who had filed (the only two serious ones were Keyes and Baldwin, but it seemed that at this ad hoc affair all comers got equal time) that an extremely streamlined process had to be contrived to keep the program on schedule.  The 9 or 10 candidates met with Clymer, and it was decided that each would get 15 minutes combined for nominations (if desired) and their own presentations, with Keyes given an additional five minutes, to compensate for the Phillips calumny.  Each of the candidates chose to dispense with the nominating speeches and do all of the talking for himself.

Baldwin got his “15 minutes of fame” first, and no less than 4 of the other “candidates” used some of theirs to essentially present seconding speeches for Chuck (and lobby, in some cases, for the slot as his running mate).  This meant Chuck got approximately 2 hours of favorable speeches.

Then it came time for Keyes to speak.  (By my watch, he was denied the full 20 minutes promised, and seemed to have been given only fifteen.)  One can only imagine the pressure this man may have felt, at having to cram so much into so little time, and under such duress, at that.

As usual, this superior orator of our time spoke without notes.  He resisted being put on the defensive, answered none of the Phillips inventions and quarter truths directly, and simply gave his speech.  He presented his incredibly well thought out positions on the issues, and let that speak for itself.  He didn’t sugar coat anything, and took on areas where he diverged somewhat from the CP line, explained the constitutional basis for his stances, and always emerged sounding sensible.  His words put the lie to the Phillips contentions that he was not in line with the Constitution or the party’s principles that derive from that document.

As the speech went on, Keyes’ passion built to a crescendo.  It was pitifully little time to present even a fraction of what he needed to say, and one would have thought that at least the unexpected subtraction of about five minutes might have thrown him.  Not Alan.  The thing went off like clockwork and ended with a dazzling display of thoroughly substantive and totally cogent verbal pyrotechnics.

He got a standing ovation (from about half the crowd).  Given the circumstances, it was the most moving speech I ever heard.  (Mine were far from the only eyes there that could not remain dry.)

After this segment came a “question and answer” period, with all of the questions coming from Mary Starrett, from whose writings I have derived the knowledge that she is very much in the “Pauldwin” camp.  Predictably, she lobbed slow-pitch softballs to Baldwin and reserved the tough ones for Alan.

She asked the latter about his “dream” cabinet, and he did not cop out, providing a “someone like so-and-so” list.  He mentioned first Chief Justice Roy Moore, which drew applause, although his (very reasonable, in my view) reference to Duncan Hunter in terms of DOD met with surprising silence (another harbinger, as Hunter, while in tune with CP on nearly all issues. is not a surrender monger.

Baldwin’s reply to a question on his non-negotiable positions included, predictably, an allusion to immediate pullouts in both Iraq and Afghanistan (who needs Barack?).  He also advanced his customary commie-style accusations of an “American empire mentality” (a grating theme he harped on practically every time he opened his mouth at the convention).

Keyes handled Starrett’s curve ball on foreign aid (which the CP has traditionally opposed under any circumstances) adroitly, saying as charity, never (not a function of coercive obtained taxpayer funds, but rather of the church), for the advancement of America’s strategic interests, yes.  His thorough knowledge of the Constitution once again showed, as national security is clearly a valid function of the feds.

Once again predictably, it was Baldwin (among all the candidates) who got the honors of fielding the last question, a veritable tee-ball that he obliging hit out of the park.

Then it was a few minutes of scheduled “mingling” time for the candidates and delegates.  This process displayed Alan Keyes at his most remarkable.  Varying crowds of a dozen or more stayed around the man for something like 5-7 hours, hanging on his every word.  He answered every question – including some hostile ones I heard from people wearing Baldwin buttons – with class and polish, and invariably seemed to disarm all doubters with his incredible on-his-feet reasoning and the obvious care with which he’d constructed each of his positions beforehand.

The performance conjured images of a Michael Jordan with his in-flight improvised moves, or a master jazz musician, able to think 16 bars ahead in the construction of a solo.  I held out hope that this genius of statesmanship had turned things around.

The next morning came the presidential polling of the various state delegations.  Phillips’ speech had originally been scheduled for this hour before this tallying; he was replaced by a John Birch Society official, who delivered what amounted to yet another Baldwin endorsement.  Only worse.  It was what the Phillips attack would have been if he’d done it more shrewdly.  The Bircher’s talk consisted mostly of listing various ills the CP wished to correct.  Fair enough.  But within each list, the one he emphasized by far the most heavily was inevitably the one where there was a shade of difference between the CP stance and that of Keyes.

This happened consistently enough that it could not have been by accident.  And this was the taste left in the delegates’ mouths going into the individual state caucuses leading into the balloting.  And this balloting produced an approximately 3-1 Baldwin win.  And with that disappeared the Constitution Party’s one chance of becoming anything but a distant also-ran.  And along with that – apparently at least – disappeared America’s final chance at saving herself electorally.  Sad.

Oh, and for those of you unaware of why I wasn’t a delegate, I was not eligible because I’d been kicked out of the state party by the chairman of the South Carolina CP, ostensibly (according to the similarly incoherent southern region director, whose Florida delegation, like South Carolina’s was to go 100% for Baldwin) because he (the SC chair) determined that I had gotten myself elected Secretary of the Greenville County CP (unanimously, by the way) illegally (since the chairman didn’t approve it – he couldn’t have, as he wasn’t present to approve them either, meaning theoretically the other three officials elected at the same meeting should have been booted, as well, except they weren’t).  (Never mind that I submitted the completed, perfect minutes of that meeting in record time – if you’re totally confused by now, you know how I felt.)

I was told in the end that the South Carolina chairman has dictatorial power to do as he pleased with membership status in the state (a little ironic for a party dedicated to the rule of law, something not lost on the national credentials committee chairman, with whom I later spoke).  One would have thought that, at worst, I would have been relieved of my county Secretary duties, but, no, I was totally out of the state party, while remaining a member in good standing in the national.  It was eventually revealed that my removal had everything to do with my having publicly criticized party icon Ron Paul (himself never a member of the party at any level, by the way).  And my non-state-membership status kept there from being any possibility of my being a delegate, meaning I had no voice at the convention, in spite of the hundreds of hours I’d worked trying to build the party toward viability.

This may have some bearing on the explanation as to how Keyes could have won the on-line rank-and-file poll with huge numbers and with Baldwin barely registering, whereas the delegate poll at the convention was complete contrary.  I know of no other cases as bizarre as mine, but I have little doubt that in many states (the states set their own rules in terms of delegate selection and even the diverse ways in which their votes are counted at the convention), a  “Ron Paul litmus test” was applied is this totally arbitrary process..

A meeting with Keyes in his suite with his supporters produced an extended gem of an analysis by this master of such extemporaneous presentations.  Not at all bitter, Alan endeavored – successfully – to bolster our spirits.  Mine were lifted in the knowledge that God was still producing greatness among His flock, and the sense of privilege I felt being in the presence of this giant among men.

His reflections on how he always seemed to get so close to the breakthrough he sought, only to be asked to endorse some policy – in this case the CP’s insane appeasement doctrine – that if he accepted it would mean death (in this case for America).  I later conveyed to him that my life experiences had been amazingly similar, but that I was not giving up and implored that he not do so either.  I thanked him for being an inspiration to me, and expressed the hope that I could in this way return the favor.  He thanked me warmly, and a group of us prayed with him before we left.

I understand that Baldwin later approached Keyes about the vice presidential nomination.   A Keyes acceptance would have put an end once and for all to even the fantasizing about a way out for this nation (via an instant third party, independent run, or whatever).  With Keyes subsumed in the Baldwin campaign and forced to adopt those objectionable policy positions, he’d be useless, and there would be likely nowhere else to turn.  And the ticket still would not get the necessary endorsements or mainstream support – not with Baldwin so out of the conservative mainstream, what with his Jane Fonda view of America.

Thankfully (and unsurprisingly), Dr Keyes chose not to prostitute himself.  And I can still dream about America’s survival a little while longer.

A couple of closing notes:

Communism and Islamism are – by their inherent nature – about destroying American, western, and Christian civilization, and killing or enslaving us and our progeny.  They declared this from the start (both centuries ago and recently), and have since busied themselves 24/7 in pursuing these aims, on every front imaginable.  They each have declared all-out war on us, and nothing they have done since has given the impression that either of these declarations is hollow.

Under such conditions, I cannot for the life of me conceive of an action we might take against these enemies that could reasonably be considered “pre-emptive,” “interventionist,” or anything but self defense.  (Bush’s Iraq affair, by the way – in which our troops’ hands are utterly tied, in which we court martial them for acts of heroism, and in which we are standing idly by while the millions of Assyrian Christians there are annihilated, does not qualify – for these very reasons and others similar.)

Secondly, if Uncle Sam ever did decide he wanted to colonize the world, I reckon the vast majority of the world would kill to be included in the empire.  Or haven’t you noticed that most of that part of Latin America that hasn’t already invaded is lined up at the border to join their compadres that have?

My fear is that within the next couple of years (at the most) our problems will reach a critical mass where the demand for entry will be exceeded by the demand for escape.  Pray that some miracle keeps that from happening.

Protest eminent domain abuse

PROTEST EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSEPlease write a personal version of the following message and send to:
AG Cuomo tonight or by Monday April 28, 2008.

Important to have as many people as possible to contact Andrew Cuomo ASAP.  Developments imply that contact from votes at this time can have a positive influence.  Pass on this message to your own lists.
 
FAX number : +1 (518) 473-9909
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/online_forms/email_ag.jsp
 
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
 
As a resident and voter I ask that the Attorney General to conduct a full scale investigation into industrial wind developers. I support a broad effort to look at the way wind developers are bribing town officials. It is common knowledge in most of the towns where wind projects are proposed that local decisions are influenced by wind money.
 
If industrial wind was so good, the developer would disclose their wind data to prove that an area has the needed wind velocity to generate meaningful electric.
These same developers refuse to accept reasonable setbacks that protect the safety of residents. 
 
REC credits are being sold on electric not generated.  Isn’t that a crime?  Steel Winds in Lackawanna, NY is a prime example to look into.  Legal actions are being filed all over the state to prevent unlawful abuses on the local level.  New York State must enforce the law, so that common citizens won’t have to expend their life savings to hold crooks accountable.
 
Now Eminent Domain is being used to force landowners, who refuse to give up the use of their property, to have their land taken for Wind Farm Prattsburgh. Alternative energy projects should only be developed when the rights of property owners and their public safety are protected.
 
NYS will lose more population if taxpayers are coerced into living next to an industrial machine that does little to produce useful electricity.
 
People need your help to stop foreign corporations from taking over local government with payoffs and jobs for officials who vote for and approve wind projects.  Will you help and go to court and prosecute corrupt officials and developers?  Your office has the power, use it.
 
Sincerely,

Al Qaeda suspect free in England, collecting welfare

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3818738.ece

Hutcherson protests Day of silence

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/eastsidenews/2004374870_dayofsilence26e.html

The formula for poverty, by Olavo de Carvalho

Want to know the fate of the US in a few years? Just watch Brazil.  The similarity in the trends are astonishing, particularly the way the parties of the “right” grovel before the Left.

Brazilian President Lula has the reputation in the US of being something of a moderate, supporting leftist ideals on the one hand while maintaining the free market on the other. This little sop thrown toward market economics has enabled Lula to fly under the same radar that exposed the antics of the more flamboyant Hugo Chavez.

But behind the Lula mask is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.

On the surface, one might think what is happening in Brazil has nothing to do with us.

One would be dead wrong.

As Olavo de Carvalho has pointed out before on this site, what is happening in Brazil today is a depressing reflection of what can easily happen in the US tomorrow, ie, the loss of the free market – and it will, unless we wake up promptly.

What Mr. de Carvalho has noticed and so many others are missing, is that our nemesis is not the hard Left, but rather the lukewarm right.

Look at the unmistakable similarity between Brazilian and US politics, for example. Quote:

At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market. 

The Brazilians are a dead ringer for us, only just a few years further Left. The only thing that may save us is taking a lesson from what has happened there (and, for that matter, in Europe). But will we? American conservatives are becoming so isolationist that many refuse to pay attention to what is happening elsewhere in the world, in the false belief that the universal laws that govern human behavior will somehow spare us.

To borrow from Ben Stein: is anyone paying attention out there? Anyone? Anyone?

Donald Hank

The formula for poverty

by Olavo de Carvalho

In 2003, Brazil ranked number 58 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.  In 2008 it ranks 101. The direct relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is the most obvious thing in the world.  Anyone who doubts this need only check out the 10 first and 10 last ranked on the heritage list.  At the top, Japan and Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.  At the bottom, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma, Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Bangladesh and Venezuela.  And Brazil is much closer to the latter than to the former, because this scale goes from one to 157 and Brazil has the uneasy distinction of being at the bottom third of the list.  Above Brazil we find Japan, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Taiwan and Spain.  Below us are Bolivia, Angola, Vietnam, Nigeria and Rwanda.  Now I finally understand the slogan of the late Dom Helder Camara, who became the world icon of leftist generosity:  “preferential option for poverty.”  It doesn’t mean helping the poor – it just means staying poor.

The Heritage Foundation Index demonstrates with utmost clarity that the Lula administration is strangling Brazilian capitalism even as it banks on it to finance its social programs and guarantee the good image of the government among international investors.

Meanwhile, in liberal circles, there are still those who swear that the socialist option of the governing party is only a stage prop to placate the “radicals,” and that Lula is at heart a proponent of the market economy.

Obviously, neither Lula nor anyone in the PT (Workers’ Party) is socialist enough to believe in the complete suppression of private ownership of the means of production.  The international Left has long desisted from this idea, one of the most idiotic ever to occur to the human mind.  What the left wants now is direct control of the economy, through taxes and restrictive regulations, and even so, only enough to guarantee the main thing: domination of the public mind, the dictatorship of psychological engineering.  But the Brazilian government has already exceeded this minimum.  On the other hand, the prudence and circumspection with which the cultural controls it wants are slowly, gently, almost imperceptibly imposed is remarkable.

In truth, it does not have to show its hand very much in this area.  The so-called “opposition parties” are surpassing it, imposing, on their own initiative, the politically correct regulations required by leftwing trends.

Depressing example: even before the PT came to power, when “anti-homophobic” policy was still only a faint suggestion in the federal sphere, the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, took the pains to endorse state law No. 10.948 of 2001, which penalizes “offensive or discriminatory action practiced against the homosexual, bisexual or transgendered citizen.”  This law has just been enforced against the citizen Juliano da Silva of the city of Pontal, who called a homosexual with whom he was arguing a “fag.” The law does not stipulate against calling a non-homosexual this, making it clear that the insult will be punished only if it has a foundation in truth.  Thus, before calling someone a “fag,” you had better make sure he’s not one.  Politically correct legislation is transforming the Justice Department into a travesty, catering only to the despotism of activist groups.  The leftist groups that propose these bills know perfectly well that their only objective is to dismantle the system from within, creating the atmosphere of chaos and anarchy necessary for the total takeover of power by one of the factions – to the exclusion of all others – to go unnoticed, and this is exactly what is happening.

The “liberal”[1] opposition takes the bait and winds up serving as a channel to implement these policies, either because it is fool enough to take seriously the moral pretexts adorning them or because it believes political correctness pays off in terms of votes.  In the first case, it is a victim of moral naïveté, but in the second case, it lapses into political stupidity that is hardly excusable in individuals who have any experience with elections.

 In Brazil, gay activism, the abortion platform and things of that kind never garner votes for anyone.  They may guarantee some applause from the media, but who says the media are as influential as they give themselves credit for?  At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market.  It is clear that the more moral and cultural ground they give, the more minimal these guarantees become.  The free market is never a law unto itself.  It depends on cultural, moral and psychological conditions that, once they are annulled in favor of political correctness, provide a left wing government with all the means of bringing capitalism to its knees without the capitalists themselves daring to complain or even figuring out what is happening, namely, cultural hegemony and ultimate control over consciences, especially those of the adversary.  The alacrity with which so-called liberal politicians sign on to the cultural propaganda of the left illustrates the success of the Gramscian strategy of “passive revolution” in Brazil, defined as a dialectic opposition in which “only the thesis develops all of its potentials in the struggle until the supposed representatives of the antithesis are captured”

The furious regulatory activity of the Lula government in the Heritage Foundation’s list points to something the whole world ought to know: when you give up everything in exchange for the free market, you wind up losing the free market as well.

Translated by Donald Hank (zoilandon@msn.com)

The author, Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major 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: olavo@olavodecarvalho.org



[1] The term “liberal” in Brazil is used to mean what in America is referred to as “conservative” or “libertarian.”-Tr.

MA high school principle will tolerate no resistance to Day of Silence

Mass Resistance reports that the principle of a MA high school is preparing to oppose any resistance to the Day of Silence.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/day_of_silence/principal_letter.html

Our letter to this principle:

Hello Mr. Jones,

Could you let me know what would be considered hate speech at our school and what is not?

For example, would it be hate speech if a student were to state that the Day of Silence is political and disrupts the learning process?

Would it be hate speech to state that 70% of all AIDS cases in the US are homosexual males and that the US Department of Health opposes distributing blood from homosexual males?

Would it be hate speech to admit to a class mate that one is NOT a homosexual?

Would it be hate speech for a student to say “I am a heterosexual.”

Would it be out of place for my daughter to mention to a class mate that she has a boyfriend? Or should she say “a friend to whom I feel an attraction” or the like? Perhaps you can suggest a more suitable term. Or perhaps it would be best if she pretends that she has a lesbian girlfriend in order to maintain a “safe school” atmosphere.

Let me know so I can instruct my daughter NOT to say anything that is forbidden at our safe school. Also kindly let me know if it is still considered proper to BE a heterosexual while at school. Perhaps it would be safer for her to attempt a psychological “pole reversal” so as to please the administration.

I apologize for using the term “daughter.” Perhaps that too is hate speech at our school. Please let me know so I can reword all future correspondence with the gender-neutral “my progeny” or “my child,” although I fear that might imply that the child is my possession and not the possession of the state, which might also offend you personally, which certainly is not my intent.

Thank you,

Concerned Parent

ACLU admits students can oppose Day of Silence.

Here is what the ACLU says at their Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project web site:

Four Things You Should Know about Student Rights and Day of Silence

Here at the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, we get calls and emails from students all over the country who have questions about things that have happened to them at school. Two things we’ve learned over the years are that many school administrators and teachers don’t have the slightest clue about students’ legal rights, and that some do know what students’ rights are but violate them anyway because they think they can get away with it.

Students and parents, you simply can’t be sure that your school will respect and uphold your legal rights. It’s up to YOU to educate yourself about what your rights are and hold your school to its responsibility to protect and enforce them.

That’s something you should always keep in mind, but especially during Day of Silence, an annual event designed to bring attention to the bullying, harassment, and name-calling LGBT students often experience in school. Here are four things you need to know about your rights as you mark Day of Silence this Friday, April 25.

  1. You DO have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. If your principal or a teacher tells you otherwise, you should contact our office or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
  2. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. If you want to stay quiet during class on Day of Silence, we recommend that you talk to your teachers ahead of time, tell them what you plan to do, and ask them if it would be okay for you to communicate on that day in writing. Most teachers will probably say yes.
  3. Your school is NOT required to “sponsor” Day of Silence. A lot of schools this year are announcing that they aren’t sponsoring Day of Silence due to pressure from national anti-gay groups. But Day of Silence is rarely a school-sponsored activity to begin with – it’s almost always an activity led by students. So don’t be confused – just because your school is saying that the school won’t officially sponsor or participate in Day of Silence doesn’t mean that it’s saying you can’t participate.
  4. Students who oppose Day of Silence DO have the right to express their views, too. Like you, they must do so in a civil, peaceful way and they must limit their expression to non-instructional time. They do NOT have a right to skip school on Day of Silence without any consequences, just as you don’t have a right to skip school just because you don’t like what they think or say.

Tim Gill, wealthy homosexual lobbyist, threatens freedom:

http://www.cbn.org/CBNnews/361991.aspx?option=print

Movie ‘Expelled’ shows Christians need to understand atheism

Expelled Movie Highlights Need to Understand Atheist Mindset… and Fast

MEDIA ADVISORY, April 21 /Christian Newswire/ — Athanatos Christian Ministry’s online apologetics academy is offering as one of its courses a study in atheism, in particular the ‘new’ atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others.

“The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth,” says Anthony Horvath, the executive director of the ministry and online academy.

Horvath continues, “The blogosphere reveals the utter disdain that the hard core atheists have for anyone who merely suggests that it might be possible to scientifically detect design. If all Stein’s movie accomplishes is revealing more publically what many in the scientific community have been saying quietly all along, that is a major accomplishment.”

The academy is offering the course “Studies in Atheism” to help people understand why the ‘new atheists’ think the way they do.

In fact, the launching of the academy acknowledges the fact that the Church itself needs to do more to prepare Christians for modern challenges- in particular, from ‘New Atheists’ like Richard Dawkins. He was featured prominently in the Expelled movie. Many Christians struggled with Dawkins’s book, “The God Delusion.”

“Needlessly,” says Horvath. “Very few educated Christians think that Dawkins even understands what Christians mean by ‘God.’ Perhaps the problem is that there aren’t enough informed Christians to know that.”

Horvath states that the “Studies in Atheism” course exposes participants to the writings and arguments of prominent and vocal atheistic spokespersons and lays out ways in which Christians can respond. This includes pointing out areas where the ‘New Atheists’ misrepresent Christianity.

The course, however, is not about understanding Christianity itself. Horvath urges other courses for that, including “Historicity of the Resurrection,” “Elements of Basic Christianity,” “Reliability of the New Testament Documents” the “Formation of the New Testament Canon,” “Biblical Greek,” and importantly, “Survey on the Historical Jesus.”

Horvath, who strayed into disbelief himself in college while studying to be a pastor, knows well the challenges to the Faith. The courses reflect Horvath’s ten years of experience in apologetics, primarily working with atheists. Future sessions will make available other courses of study.

The “Studies in Atheism” course begins April 30th and is enrolling now. Interested individuals are directed to the Academy portal page for the start dates of other courses.

The Academy portal page is www.athanatosministries.org/academy/

White men can’t negotiate / Parent-induced transgender disorder

Comments by Don Hank:

White men can’t negotiate

In the article linked below (and here), Joan Battey is right as usual. US economic woes most certainly are not all China’s fault, not by a long shot.

The US has 2 problems when dealing with foreign powers:

We hurt ourselves by giving away far too much and we hurt other nations through unintended consequences.

Our rush to grant China Most Favored Nation status with no meaningful checks and balances destroyed American industry, sabotaged our trade balance and now is also starting to hurt China.

I have been hearing for years from my China sources that poor Chinese are groaning under the high prices of real estate and staple goods. These sources now also tell me that many of China’s factories are closing due to rising labor and other costs. This is partly due to neurotic US policies, which while promising the Chinese juicy manufacturing contracts, also pressure China to offer above-slave wages and more benefits to workers.

On the simplest level, Americans are lousy at negotiating, while Chinese are masters of the art.

Back in the 80s, I once gave English lessons to a man who headed the Taiwanese trade delegation to the US. Being Chinese he was a natural negotiator. The Chinese principle of negotiating for anything is to ask for everything and promise nothing in return, and then “compromise” until an agreement is reached that gives the Chinese the lion’s share and the other side the scraps. The US side never seems to notice this, let alone learn from it.

For as long as I can remember, the US negotiation method has been just the opposite: We offer and promise everything and ask nothing in return, assuming that the other side will be just as fairminded as we are. The fact that this fails every time never deters us from proceeding with the same policy each subsequent time.

Our trade deficit problem with China is due almost entirely to this masochistic negotiating principle.

Jimmy Carter and his Panama Canal deal are a perfect example: In negotiations with then Panama President Omar Torrijos, he listened to the latter’s argument that Panama is a sovereign country and that the US needs to respect that. Instead of mentioning the obvious, namely, that without US intervention, there would have been no Panama in the first place, and without American ingenuity and the sacrifice of American lives and labor, there would never have been a Panama Canal, the pathologically naïve Jimmy rushed to sign the most self-immolating treaty in American history, giving the Canal to the “Panamanian people” (read: the Panamanian oligarchy) with virtually no strings attached, except the right to intervene should the canal be attacked. Thus Americans get to risk their lives to save someone else’s property.

If America does not learn to negotiate like a business person soon, we will be out of bargaining chips altogether!

Click here for: Passing the “depression?” blame buck: Note entirely China’s fault

By Joan Battey

Parent-induced “transgender disorder”

In the following article, an “expert” on transgender disorder tells us “All I know is that when I see preadolescents [with transgender disorder], they have been dressing in the underwear of the other sex for years. These kids are almost certainly transgendered.”

This doctor is missing the obvious: no child would be able to wear underwear of the opposite sex unless an adult parent or guardian, provided the child with that underwear. If my wife caught our daughter with her brother’s underwear after her morning shower, or if she saw boy’s underpants in her hamper, that would sound an alarm and we would immediately tell our daughter that that underwear is not hers, and that she needs to wear girls’ underwear. That would end the “confusion” in the child’s mind. (Of course, in a few years, that kind of common-sense behavior on the part of parents may well be considered child abuse! Parents may soon have to defend their right to tell their daughter she is a girl or their son he is a boy! California’s laws may have paved the way for this madness).

Clearly, “transgender disorder” is something facilitated by parents who, motivated perhaps by a pathological desire for publicity, want their kids to be transgendered. Through the subtlest suggestion, or by collaborating with the child’s illogical whims, parents are the ones responsible for this “disorder,” and it is they who need treatment.

Thus, it is all up to parents how children see themselves. But ever since Dr. Spock wrote his first toxic parenting texts, we have taught parents that it is wrong to discipline children because this may cause them trauma, when in fact, being truthful and providing guidance-such as the loving admonition “you are a boy and this is how boys behave”-is what children desperately need, now more than ever, and for some, their insistence on identifying with the other sex is certainly a cry for parental help that more and more often fails to materialize.

Even Dr. Spock himself, the prime mover of the bad parenting we have seen everywhere since the 60s, was honest enough to admit, when he was older and wiser, that he was wrong in advising parents to refrain from disciplining children.

Yet our society proceeds like a herd of troglodytes, pursuing a failed doctrine out of political correctness. But why be surprised at this when millions are voting for politicians whose ideologies reflect a system that failed in the Soviet Union and China? Failed policy is all the rage.

Will Dr. Spack, the transgender facilitator with the sound-alike name, also some day grow up and admit to his tragic mistake? Not likely, because this would be an admission of the criminal nature of deliberately deforming young bodies at the whim of youngsters already diagnosed as disturbed. Sort of like pushing a man off a bridge when he threatens suicide.

What the world needs now is a lawsuit against such doctors who deliberately maim children under the pretext of protecting them from suicide, a pretext based on nothing but the flimsiest anecdotal evidence supplied by a doctor with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that children’s gender is a construct of their own making.

Absent such a lawsuit, bad parenting may soon be enforced by a ravingly insane government in the name of “protecting the children.”

Click here for the news article.

Divorce and unwed motherhood cost US taxpayer $1 trillion per decade.

http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/pressrelease.pdf

“Public” school supports religion (it’s ok: this school is Islamic)

http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

40-60% of Mass teachers flunk

http://www.theacru.org/acru/teacher_testing_in_massachusetts_biased_against_incompetence/

DVDs you need if you have kids

http://www.go2rpi.com/E-MailSpecials/IllustraMedia3-DVDSet-TRM.htm

Massive oil reserves found in ND / Moral case for Iraq / Homosexuality 101

A Moral Case for Overthrowing Saddam

By PVBLIUS

America had a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps you may remember that in 1991, President Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, but promptly abandoned them and the Iraqi people were left again under Hussein’s rule, but this time with the sanctions applied against Iraq as punishment (see http://puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news030412e.html for more details). The moral toll of our abandonment of the Iraqis is bad enough; but add to that the responsibility for the number of children (and adults) who died in Iraq under the sanctions who would not have died if we had kept our commitment at the time. A reasonable estimate of the number of children who died as a result of the Oil for Food sanctions is 350,000, and so it can be seen that a simple act of abandonment and political expediency by Bush Sr. had terrible results. As a nation, we followed Bush Sr. and abandoned the Iraqi people even though they heeded our push for uprising, and so the results and responsibility are ours.

Such wrongs require restitution, and simply the best way to do so has been to finally keep our previously neglected commitment to aid the Iraqi people in being free from Saddam. Some have argued that 4000 soldiers dead is a heavy toll , or the civilian dead is a heavy toll, or that we should be entitled to the Iraqi oil in payment for the Iraqi people’s freedom, but such ideas neglect the fact that we have the blood of many Iraqis on our heads. The soldiers who died did not die in vain, as those opposed to the war in Iraq claim – they died honorably by helping our nation to pay a long overdue debt to the Iraqi people.

Anticipating Reasons for Disagreement

Some may claim that 350,000 children couldn’t have died under UN sanctions. While the exact number of dead is not known, a number of estimates have been made on the number of dead children resulting from the Oil for Food embargo. The numbers range from over a million, to as low as 350,000. The 350,000 is considered a conservative and realistic number, and is still quite large (and does not include adults!). For an extensive evaluation of the estimates of childhood deaths, see http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html.

Others may say we are not responsible as a nation, and therefore the deposing of Saddam and the Iraq War were not justified. At a simple level, to deny our responsibility as a nation is akin to someone who fathers a child but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for that child. Did our nation make a commitment to the Iraqi people it hadn’t kept? Did the Iraqi people rise up in good faith, expecting us to keep our commitment? Did an embargo get placed upon Iraq because we failed to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam? Did the embargo result in the death of many people? If the rhetorical questions are not sufficient to establish our responsibility, consider the Biblical case of Saul, David, and the Gibeonites as reported in 2 Samuel 21.

The Gibeonites were a nation of Hivites that feared the oncoming Israelites and tricked the Israelites into making a covenant for safety. The covenant could be argued to be illegal as the Israelites were not to make a covenant with any of the peoples in Canaan, but to drive them out. However, they were expected by God to keep their commitment once it had been made. Likewise, our leader made a commitment to the Iraqi people, and God expected us to keep it, even if the circumstances around it are not in keeping with our law or government structures.

You may say: “Ah, but two wrongs don’t make a right. We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq without declaring War, and therefore we should leave as quickly as possible.” Again, consider the actions of David with the Gibeonites. Hundreds of years after the covenant was made, David was told by the Lord that a famine has hit the land because of Saul’s attempts to exterminate the Gibeonites. David asked the Gibeonites how the crimes could be atoned for, and they desired to execute seven of Saul’s descendents. Note that the Law in Deuteronomy 24:16 does not allow for children to be put to death for the sins of their fathers; yet David, at the request of the Gibeonites, handed over seven of Saul’s descendants to be put to death. If it was against the Law, why did the Lord honor David’s actions by again hearing the prayers of the Israelites and ending the famine? (An excellent commentary on the Gibeonite situation can be found at: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1021.htm)

Perhaps such a situation strikes you as counterintuitive, but consider the Lord’s sending His own Son as a sacrifice on the cross. God used the actions of sinful leaders to accomplish a good in that the death of Jesus paid for the penalty of sin. What you see in these examples is that keeping and honoring a commitment is incredibly important to the Lord, and restitution for a broken commitment is of great importance to Him as well. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the restitution process that is occurring in Iraq (even if inadvertently accomplished by sinful man) is pleasing to the Lord, and therefore important to us!

Homosexuality 101:

Dr. Julie Harren Hamiltion tells you what you need to know but aren’t supposed to.

http://www.homosexuality101.com/

Libraries turn to gaming to attract “readers”

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/13/arts/State-of-Libraries.php

A FRIEND of Laigle’s Forum sent this in:

BAM–this is one of the many things that DHS, HPHS and every other high school in the country needs!

http://www6.district125.k12.il.us/clubs/truthseekers/default.html

Spread the word! Post it! Tell your kids to start one!

This is the high school club that is sponsoring the Ben Stein film Expelled at a local multi-plex theatre.

For those of you who are out of state, this is a large and excellent suburban high school in IL.

Massive oil reserves found in North Dakota

http://motownsports.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57591.html

Alan Keyes event to be video-streamed

This just in from Nancy Goettman: 

Alan Keyes to announce break with GOP in Hazleton, PAApril 13, 2008

  PhotobucketHAZLETON, Penn. – Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes has chosen April 15 to make a major announcement of his intentions, following indications he has broken with the GOP.

A life-long Republican who has increasingly cited the party’s failure to match conservative rhetoric with actual performance in the political arena, Keyes said he will reveal his reasons for departing the GOP at a press conference scheduled for 8:30 pm ET, at the Best Western Genetti Inn in Hazleton, PA.

The event will be video-streamed live at Keyes’ website, http://www.alankeyes.com/.

Keyes added that he is looking to the Constitution Party as a possible home for his future efforts in politics, including a potential run for president in the 2008 general election.

“No other ‘third party’ is as well-established as the Constitution Party,” said Keyes. “They’ve been around since 1992, and have built a significant grassroots presence among patriotic, Constitution-minded citizens – with a registered membership of over 350,000. Conservatives have a home in the CP that they can find nowhere else, given the decline in the Republican Party’s credibility as a voice and vehicle for conservatism.”

Regarding his potential third-party candidacy for president in the fall, Keyes said, “I believe people deserve a choice. They certainly deserve a conservative choice – something neither John McCain, Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama can offer voters. All they can offer is empty promises based on liberal track records.”

Symbolic of Keyes’ break with the Republican Party is a caricature of the GOP logo – upside down – on the front page of his website.

The Constitution Party will hold its nominating convention April 23-26 in Kansas City.

According to Dan Smeriglio, a Keyes supporter who is helping to arrange the event, the former Reagan administration diplomat chose to make his announcement in Hazleton because of the town’s strong stance on illegal immigration.

“I understand a good portion of his speech next week will center on illegal immigration,” Smeriglio said. Smeriglio and a group he represents, Voice of the People USA, have been vocal in opposing illegal immigration since Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta introduced the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in 2006 – thrusting Hazleton into national prominence in the movement to stem illegal immigration.

Keyes – who has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory – served as Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, as well as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented U.S. interests in the UN General Assembly.
 

Stand your ground

By Helen Valois

Deputy Grassroots Coordinator

“You’ve convinced me that you are going to help put Hillary Clinton
or Barack Obama in the White House.”

This is how a friend of mine tried to wrap up a political discussion last weekend.  The circumstances were unusual, even if the comment was not.  Usually, you’ll find a lone Keyes backer being numerically outgunned by a bunch of RINOs.  In this case, the sole McCain supporter found himself faced with an enthusiastic and well-informed circle of Keyes people.

It is interesting that he had nothing to say about our arguments themselves.  A good guy at heart, he conceded the moral and civic points that we raised.  Then, disappointingly, he fell back on the same old “lesser-of-two-evils” approach that the Republican leadership has been serving up for decades now.  The idea that the only way to win is to concede defeat at the very outset, by backing a candidate who doesn’t stand for conservative principle in the first place, has itself come to fruition in the presumptive nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate for 2008.  Is this not, in and of itself, enough to convince us at last of the wrong-headedness of this approach?

This type of thinking constitutes textbook “enabling behavior,” in the vernacular of popular psychology.  Just as the wife of an alcoholic is supposed to “save the family” by calling in sick for her hung-over husband, we conservatives are being pressured to “save the White House for Republicans” by facilitating the socialist mentality.  “What are you trying to do, get me fired?” the husband demands, if she mentions any qualms.  It is easy to see that, if he did lose his job, the fault would be his own and not hers.  Why then can we not see that it is up to the politician to earn the conservative vote, and not up to the conservatives to put into office a politician who has chronically failed them? 

The pressure to be political enablers needs to be staunchly resisted.  The once-great Republican party has, in nominating John McCain, crossed the line from viable to suicidal, and many well-intentioned Americans know it.  That is why they are saying they will not vote for him, even at the cost of not voting at all.  Yet to allow the RINOs to effectively disenfranchise us is not acceptable, either.  So, where do we go from here?

Before we look ahead, let’s look back.  The Republicans are the heirs of the Lincoln legacy, but what does that truly mean?  During the era of slavery, there was a party – the Democrats – that refused to stand against the ungodly and un-American evil of its time.  There was another party – the Whigs – that let its opposition to slavery be watered down to the point of irrelevance.  It was in this context that a third party known as the Republicans providentially arose.   

Lincoln didn’t make it his life’s objective to rehabilitate a dying political party.  During the nineteenth century crisis of the Republic, he saw to it that American identity and sovereignty – as well as the dignity and life of every American – was, in principle, preserved.  There were challenges, and unspeakable sacrifice, but Lincoln’s cause was ultimately the cause of God Himself, and it was God who saw it through.

In our own time, we have again seen the American mission assaulted not only from without, but also from within.  Socialism renamed “liberalism” has been foisting an ersatz version of our country’s character upon us, while the existing party structure has proven unable or unwilling to stand in the gap.  God, however, is still able to achieve His designs for this world, and it is with Him that we must finally cooperate.

Alan Keyes, as you know, has ended his lifelong affiliation with the Republicans.  This is a step the Ambassador has not taken lightly, and neither should any of us who are considering a similar move.  He has chosen to seek the presidential nomination of the Constitution party, and he asks that you prayerfully consider supporting him in this path.

Many of you took the time to respond to the questionnaire we sent out regarding whether or not Alan ought to go third party.  The overwhelming majority of responses were in favor of his doing so.  You wrote:

  • Alan has always been the best choice, and the Constitution Party is an exciting, hopeful option for the millions of disappointed Americans who do not know another choice exists.
     
  • I will vote for Dr. Keyes based on his life’s work and not on his party affiliation.
     
  • I have always voted Republican, but today we have no “life” protection under their party.  It is a fearful thought to envision life under the domination of any current (major party) candidate.
     
  • Either way, I am supporting Alan Keyes for President of the United States of America.  I have voted for him before and I will continue to vote for him until elected.
     
  • As a Republican it is hard not to fall in line, but if Alan Keyes joins the Constitution Party and runs as its candidate, I will not only vote for him; I will switch my party affiliation.
     
  • Understanding all that he stands for, I will vote for Alan Keyes no matter what!
     
  • We the people have no choice in this election.  As soon as Alan Keyes makes it formal and runs on a third party ticket, I will be joining that party with him.  True patriots have no choice.

Dr. Keyes has frequently noted that he is running for President because principled conservatives are being offered no way of participating in politics in this country without violating their own beliefs.  To say that Alan is the “best choice” expresses this fact, yet inadvertently masks another reality.  As Americans and as believers, we recognize that there are things that lie beyond the reach of our own decisions.  Keyes truly is the choice about which we have no choice; a vote in acknowledgment of that which cannot – strictly speaking – be voted on in the first place.  We too hold certain truths to be self-evident.  Among them are the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that if John McCain fails to be inaugurated next January, he and the Republican leadership will not need to look beyond the frames of their own mirrors in determining exactly who is to blame.
 

A reminder

Please donate what you can to help, as Alan travels to Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to announce his future plans – at a press conference to be streamed live on Tuesday at 8:30 pm ET – and as he also travels with his staff to the Constitution Party Convention a week later in Kansas City.

Thanks so much for your financial support!

You can contribute by going to www.alankeyes.com/donate.php

EU Flag in England, Tom Cox fires GOP, Apologetics and Homeschoolers

 EU flag over Buckingham Palace creating a furor

By Donald Hank

No Union Jack is in sight atop the home of the royal family. But if the following web site is a reflection of the reality over there, things are really heating up.

Click here to see the blue flag (no, it’s not the Union Jack!) and read the comments

For those who haven’t been following this issue here, citizens of the UK have been denied the opportunity to vote on whether or not to allow their constitution, which dates back to the Magna Carta, to be replaced (superceded) by the EU Constitution.

That is because powerful politicians have signed on to various treaties over the years that, bit by bit, took away the sovereignty of the Brits, who would almost certainly nix the EU Constitution if they could.

How could this happen, you ask?

Look around you: Americans too have a long history of having policies shoved down their throats by politicians, some elected but many not. The Council on Foreign Relations acts in some ways like an arm of the government, setting policy, much of it highly unpopular, behind our backs. This trend heated up when we were forced to accept Most Favored Nations status for China. The people didn’t want this, would not have voted for it, but our leaders suddenly took the ball and ran with it, and next thing you knew, we had betrayed Taiwan and jumped in bed with the Red Chinese, their-and our-worst enemies in that region, and are becoming poorer every day as a result.

Next came NAFTA. You didn’t vote for it. But unelected zealots in the CFR pushed for it and eventually, they found a stooge to sign it and now you have a treaty that was touted originally as bound to favor the US, but wound up increasing our trade deficit, making us all poorer. Then there was an open-border policy, amnesty for illegal aliens, CAFTA, and now the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) and soon a truck route to deliver Chinese goods all over North America in Mexican trucks, and now the latest trick: a military partnership that grants Canadian military personnel authority over you and me.

What are we losing, you say?

Sovereignty, and economic power.

Why?

Because powerful people many of whose names are unknown to us, are deeply entrenched in high places, and they are protecting their own personal interests at the expense of citizens, enriching other nations, most of which are hostile to us, for their own gain but also out of a Marxist zeal to see our wealth redistributed to poorer countries.

The Great American Experiment has been hijacked.

Suddenly, Americans in the know feel a great deal of solidarity with the British, because we are all in the same boat.

The people who gave the world the Magna Carta now joins the people who founded the most powerful nation on earth in ceding their power back to a few powerful men.

But by the looks of the above-linked web site, the rich and powerful have not figured out how to make them like it.

Nor have our rich and powerful figured out how to make us like the three candidates they have foisted upon us.

Tom Cox ” fires” the GOP

Fellow conservatives and constitutionalists: Have you noticed as I have, that when you vote for the lesser of two evils for President, you still get evil?

 I have threatened to vote third-party in the past, but the fear tactics of the Republicans have pulled me back at the last minute. This year is different. I am watching the Constitution Party (CP) very carefully. If they nominate Dr. Alan Keyes as their candidate for President, I will vote for him, even if I have to write him in

 Keyes is the only guy in the whole field with the backbone and principles to restore the federal government to its Constitutional functions and limits. The Democrats and Republicans lost interest in the Constitution long ago, and are content to squabble over power until the nation goes down the drain.

 The Libertarians are OK on some issues, but they are clueless on national defense and sovereignty. Defending personal freedom is meaningless if our nation is attacked and destroyed.

 This was a great country, once, and it can be again, but only if we act soon. Stop choosing between evils. Check out the Constitution Party, http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 Tom Cox
Charlotte, TN

Apologetics Critical to Homeschoolers, All Christians, Says Academy

MEDIA ADVISORY, April 14 /Christian Newswire/ — Athanatos Online Academy offers course modules about the facts of the faith to supplement curriculums for churches, homeschool organizations, while remaining available to individuals.

The academy offers an Apologetics Certificate program as well. The academy home page is www.athanatosministries.org/academy.

The apologetics academy offers affordable, short term courses that are easy to plug in to existing programs.

Executive Director Anthony Horvath explains, “If you’re studying the conditions that led to the fall of Rome you’re also talking about the same context in which the New Testament came into its final form. Our courses on the creeds or the New Testament canon would help students see the relationship between Christianity and history. That is something we are convinced homeschooling families are interested in.”

Horvath explains that apologetics is consistent with the incarnation and a rejection of Gnostic ways of thought, “God didn’t have to come in the flesh. He is the one that stepped into history and challenged people to believe the miracles which they saw with their own eyes. God answered the problem of pain and suffering by entering into the human experience. He could have dealt with us apart from our senses, but he didn’t.”

Horvath argues that people are confused about apologetics, “Many people think apologetics and they think arm twisting. But apologetics can just be setting the facts straight. But apologetics also represents a way of thinking, too. Jesus said to love God with your heart, yes, but also with your mind. Homeschoolers understand this.”

The online academy is not about convincing nonChristians to become Christians but to equip Christians with the facts and evidences for Christianity so that they can more effectively minister to family, friends, and others that they meet. Horvath argues, “We need informed Christians because uninformed Christians tend to fall away completely- or at least their children tend to. It helps when you understand where Christianity fits into other areas of study.”

The academy’s courses are two to five weeks long and do not have a burdensome workload. Much of the reading material is available on the Internet but the academy aims to expose people to the writings of top Christian scholars, too.

The Academy is in session four times a year and the next session begins April 21st. The academy is enrolling now. Group rates are available.

The academy page is www.athanatosministries.org/academy

You may contact Anthony at 202-280-7971 or press@athanatosministries.org

Help fight homo-elitists in school / UK betrayed / More

Commentary by Don Hank

HILLARY and McCain in defense of Americans: You aren’t bitter, just bigots

Obama recently suggested that religion, guns and border security are for “bitter” rural people.

Hillary countered this by saying Pennsylvanians are resilient. Clinton, known for her elitist views on everything, also accused Obama of being an elitist.  But she didn’t defend rural Americans on the religion, guns or border security issue.

John McCain, who has been out of touch with voters throughout his career, says Obama is out of touch with Americans. McCain didn’t take issue with Obama on the religion, guns or border security remark either.

So while neither of the other candidates explicitly takes issue with Obama on his religion, guns and border security statement, both apparently agree that we bigots aren’t necessarily bitter.

How sweet of them to come, at least conditionally, to our defense.

Hear the two pots and the kettle spouting off here.

__

OPRAH supports Vagina Monologue author Eve Ensler

At the LYNCUP site, I had introduced readers to feminist icon Andrea Dworkin, quoting passages from her book Woman Hating that openly and unambiguously endorse adult-child sex. I had pointed out the hypocrisy of this woman, considered an authority on domestic violence, not just sanctioning but actually endorsing something that is obviously a form of violence against children. If you remember nothing else, please remember that there is an unbroken bloodline between the older feminists and the social “change” advocates of today (gay agenda, domestic violence industry, GLSEN, liberal/progressive educators, psychologists, media, Hollywood, etc), as Americans for Truth makes clear in an article on Eve Ensler, the author of Vagina Monologues, the obscene play intended for young people. The article exposes a conversation Ensler had with a 6 hear old girl, asking her intimate questions about her vagina. Ensler too has advocated adult-child sex.

Oprah, who operates a school for girls, likes and supports Ensler.

These are the kind of people who are having increasing influence on public education, having made great strides in all states, but particularly in California, where educators are required by law to endorse homosexuality; Massachusetts and Montgomery County, Maryland, where homosexuality is endorsed in the early grades; and almost all public schools throughout the US, which are poised to celebrate a Day of Silence intended to support homosexuals, who are supposedly being abused, but where in fact Christian kids are the ones who suffer raw assaults on their faith at every turn. David Parker’s son was beaten by gay activists for his father’s Christian stand.

For Christians, every day is a day of silence.

What can you do?

If your school is celebrating the DOS on April 25, call the superintendent or principle and explain why this is unfair to Christian kids, that homosexual kids are more protected than kids from traditional families, that by granting a special day only to this special group, the school is in fact politicizing education, and that in any case, it is disruptive, adding still another distraction.

If they won’t listen, keep your child home that day, and make it a day of prayer and fasting.

__

UK Constitution to be scrapped, without the people’s permission

It is happening here in the US as well. It is called the New World Order and, as the name suggests, it is Brave New World translated to reality. Remember how Bush Sr. talked incessantly of this New World Order, sounding more like a wizard than a president? Mr. McCain, one of its implementers, may be our next president.

Though conservatives reject McCain, Big Brother has chosen him to take us another step toward the North American Union, the replacement of the US Constitution. Once that happens, the perfidy will be complete.

For a glimpse of what awaits our country, click here.

__

MORE on Britain’s national crisis

When a government turns criminal, people need to take on a moral code of their own. In Britain, youngsters used to seeing their government behaving lawlessly, are assuming that immorality is acceptable. Who is left to judge them?

Click here for Jeff Randall’s “spot-on” article “In a land without morals, it’s no wonder children are killing each other.”

There’s a crisis on our streets, especially in London, and it has nothing to do with the cost of housing. As the blame game is played out between ministers and bankers over why mortgages are suddenly much more expensive, the price of life in parts of Britain’s inner cities has hit rock bottom.

 __

OLD hippies never die

Did you know that Muslims are victims of us?

Click here for “Victims on Parade at NYU ‘Academic Freedom Conference'”

__

I, Sir, am a rightwing Christian bigot! (Whap! bam!)

Thinking about his next item, I couldn’t help remembering the Steve Martin movie The Jerk, where Steve Martin is confronted by a bigot who tells him he will help keep away the n…gers, and Steve indignantly says, “I, Sir, am a n….ger!” and proceeds to punch his lights out.

It seems the folks at Next Theatre blog consider grassroots Americans hate mongers for opposing the presentation of the play Angels in America at Deerfield High School. They counter with an article at their blog NextTheatre entitled Rightwing Christian bigots attack Deerfield High School, referencing a parent who “was so horrified that she formed North Shore Student Advocacy to lend legitimacy to her hatemongering, fear-peddling campaign against the devils at Deerfield.”

The leftwing elitists recommend sending a letter of support to the superintendent of the Deerfield District.

Friends, let’s counter this the way we successfully countered the slime attack on state rep. Sally Kern when she opposed the gay agenda in her state.

Here is how:

Email Superintendant George Fornero at gfornero@dist113.org and tell him the real bigots are the ones who are attacking universal standards of decency. Tell him decency is not a construct of Judeo-Christianity, as is rumored lately in elitist circles, but in fact is and has been accepted everywhere in the civilized world, except at Deerfield High School, for thousands of years, and you are not about to give up decency without a fight. Tell him to stand down from his untenable attack on decency or turn over the job to someone who will.

Oh, and you can tell him that if some parents object to decency, they might want to send their kids to a private school that endorses age-inappropriate subject matter such as obscenity and explicit sex scenes and language in books, plays and the like.