You deserve some good news
By Donald Hank
Recently Joseph Farah suggested that despite the bad batch of presidential candidates from which to choose, he is optimistic, because he believes our institutions are changing in a positive way. I believe he is on to something. Last year WND’s hardcopy periodical Whistleblower dedicated an entire issue to abortion. Despite the dismal reports it contained, eg, that more unborn babies had died in abortions since Wade-Roe than in Hitler’s and Stalin’s murder sprees combined, the whole tenor of the issue was upbeat. The good news was that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find doctors to perform abortions. This in turn, I think, was certainly due to the excellent work done on the front lines by ordinary people writing letters to legislators and newspapers, attending rallies or carrying posters and picketing at strategic locations throughout the US. There had always been a lot of controversy over those posters with graphic photos of dead fetuses and their body parts, which are certainly hard to look at and take us way out of our comfort zone.
But oddly, many of the people who hated these posters and the truth they display so graphically were the ones who wound up giving ground on the issue of abortion. These included prominent Democrats and even some of the pioneers of the abortion movement.
The truth, resisted so fiercely for so long, had ultimately sunk in and had had a devastating effect on the abortion industry. So much so that no matter who becomes president, they will have to contend with an increasingly mighty backlash against abortion, and the prospect of giving ground or losing popularity.
Likewise, in one of our recent articles, we saw how author Ryan Sorba’s speech at Smith College was curtailed by a bunch of howling lesbian termagants.
Someone who saw this article emailed me in a pessimistic tone suggesting the world may be coming to an end or the like because of this incident. I told this emailer not to worry, that things like this fix themselves when the public becomes aware of how their rights are being threatened.
I was thinking back on things that had happened in the past that would cause people gloom but that were corrected when the news came out, and not by coincidence, but precisely because the news came out and was presented in an objective way that showed how the event in question was a threat to this or that right.
For example, consider last summer’s failed amnesty bill that was killed by the grassroots in an elitist Senate that was suddenly overpowered by regular people like you and me. Or look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an issue that came to a head when the presidents of the US, Mexico and Canada met secretly in Canada. The public outcry was so great that ranking officials have recently declared the SPP a dead issue. Of course, that means that it will morph into something else, which in turn will have to be exposed to the sunlight.
The good news is that the public outcry against supranational enterprises of this type has helped chip away at the stealthy effectiveness with which they had once succeeded almost unopposed. Laigle’s Forum played a part with some of our articles beginning back in June 2006 with a 3 part series containing: an original column entitled The supranational movement; our translation from the HazteOir web site (in Spain) entitled The call effect in Spain, and our translation (from the Portuguese) of Olavo de Carvalho’s scholarly expose Behind the subversion, and later others, including my column at WorldNetDaily entitled Europe’s frog stew and a column entitled The EU is an evil empire.
But getting back to the riot at Smith College, here is why I am no longer worried that our First Amendment may not survive the homosexual onslaught:
Today there was this video at ABC News that shows a sea change.
Now don’t be surprised if ABC has taken it down by the time you click. But the damage has been done, and not to our side, but to the homosexual cause. This video is the first report I have ever seen presented at a mainstream news site (I assume it aired on TV) in which the reporter actually show objectively how homosexual bullies deny people their rights, muzzle opponents and squelch debate.
What really stunned me was that, with a candor and balance I have never seen in the mainstream news, the reporter tells us that a member of the American Psychiatric Association had tried for 2 years to organize a symposium discussing why people become gay and whether a gay can “go straight,” but that the gay community had staged a protest so vigorous that the symposium had to be cancelled. Until this time, the public had not been privy to the fact that the gay agenda is directly opposed to free discussion. The report concludes:
“He [the organizer of the symposium] wishes people would stop shouting and start talking.”
I have been outspoken about homosexual issues in the past and was never intimidated by these activists. I like to think this is because I have always taken my orders from my Commander-in-Chief, who said I was to love sinners. My theory is that perhaps those who shy away from confrontations, or give in to “gay” marriage demands, for example, are those who down inside really do hate, resent or fear gay people and are afraid these untoward feelings might surface in a confrontation (as they did, for example, when Michael Savage told a homosexual caller: “you should die of AIDS”). At any rate, for whatever reason, by and large, the media, including most of the “conservative” media, have always been particularly gutless in countering or even questioning the gay agenda.
But ABC has started a trend that, in my perception, is new. It was long overdue.
I also suspect that Ben Stein’s expose of academic intolerance has actually shaken more than a few consciences, just like those pro-life activists who mightily smote the national conscience, and his film Expelled may in fact have influenced ABC’s reporters.
At any rate, for whatever reason, ABC did the right thing in suggesting that the screaming stop and the talk begin.
Thank you, ABC!
My point is that no matter how bad our next president is or how much he or she differs from the grassroots in terms of viewpoint, politicians are not omnipotent. They rely on a certain degree of popularity to carry out their agendas. You and I still decide whether they get that.
And God decides whether or not they succeed.
We had previously reported on the Holmen church-and-state issue where a national atheist organization tried to sue to have a religious symbol removed. Here is Anthony Horvath’s latest report: