Obama’s “gotcha” effect on America

The American Lula

Olavo de Carvalho

Jornal do Brasil, July 24, 2008

 

Besides listening to the national anthem with his hands over his genitals instead of his heart, Barack Hussein Obama has adulterated the presidential seal so as to make it into one of his campaign logos, declared that the American flag is “a symbol of oppression,” and, as a finishing stroke, removed the stars and stripes from the tail of his campaign jet, replacing them with the “O” that stands for. . . himself.

 

More than plain and simple contempt, this attitude denotes a conscious effort at destroying the national symbols. This effort, in turn, does not invite symbolic interpretation: its meaning is self-evident. It gives electoral expression to the cultural war that has been waged against the United States, from within and from abroad, ever since the sixties: the point is to erect, upon the rubble of patriotism and sovereignty, a new system of loyalties, based on the alliance between every anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Christian hatred and the billionaire interests engrossed with the implementation of the world government. The clearest token of such an alliance are the candidate’s sources of funding: radical and pro-terrorist groups, on the one hand, and the globalist megafortunes plus the mainstream media in full, on the other. Hence the vigor of his campaign, which has three or four times as much money as his opponent’s and-without any exaggeration-gets twenty or thirty times as much media coverage.

 

With this backup, he presumes not only to defy every convention but also to trample on the most elementary of legal requirements: after withholding for months his birth certificate, he at last produced a manifestly spurious one (see http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm). The original document, which is still missing, is necessary to clear up an essential question: Is Obama an American citizen, or is he an alien, and therefore ineligible? The concealment and the subsequent fraud speak in favor of the latter hypothesis, but the steadfast enthusiasm of Obamaniacs, contrasting with their absolute lack of interest in clarifying this question, shows that they would rather demolish the American electoral system in a single blow than allow Republicans to stay in power: the new system of loyalties is already in force, placing the partisan ambitions of the Left over national integrity.

 

With the same self-confident insolence, Obama’s government plans run flagrantly counter to the will of the majority, without the candidate’s having to fear the loss of even a single vote. The nation wants gas prices down; Obama promises to send them up, by maintaining the ban on new oil drilling. America wants to see illegal immigrants gone; Obama promises not only to grant them amnesty but also to give them taxpayer-funded health care. The nation wants fewer taxes; Obama promises to create a few more. If millions of American citizens who think and want the opposite of what Obama does have sworn to vote for Obama for president, it is not on account of what he promises, but in spite of his promising them hell itself. The attraction of the hypnotic image is stronger than the cost-benefit analysis.

 

Obama’s campaign is a work of precision psychological engineering, planned not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept any loss, any humiliation, any defeat, just so as not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise. Here is what Obama is demanding-and obtaining-from voters: that they sacrifice everything to a fetish, and that they do so to some extent consciously, sharing therefore all blame for the operation and being rendered, in advance, unable to fight against it once it has been accomplished.

 

We have already seen this operation carried in Brazil, on the basis of the stereotypical image of the “worker president,” against whose crimes and perfidies no one can raise an audible voice any more, for everyone, coerced by psychological blackmail, became an accomplice in some way or another in the rite of sacrifice before the altar of the idol.

 

 

 

Translated by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori

Three strikes for Rick Warren

Previously, my column The purpose-driven left turn had appeared at Laigle’s Forum, showing how Rick Warren – whether inadvertently or on purpose – was helping the Democrats elect their candidate this year. If you read the comments section of that issue, you will see that Rick himself showed up with comments that were at best disingenuous and was then gently set straight by yours truly.

Today, no less than three items came in from three separate sources regarding Rick Warren, the first being an article showing how a Rick Warren acolyte closed down the web site of a Christian site manager who opposes Rick’s plan to take over the world:

http://christiannewswire.com/news/332947299.html

Then Loren Davis from Africa sent this pdf file, which, starting on page 5, tells about Rick Warren’s enormous influence on the government of Rwanda and other African nations, which Rick hopes to remake according to his own utopian ideas:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/raceforafrica2.pdf

And finally, we received this article below from Johan Malan of South Africa, which we reprint with the author’s permission.

All in all it is clear from these articles how Rick Warren has been propped up by the kind of bullying tactics we normally see used by the Left, and how he has been grabbing power not only in America but also elsewhere, and using that power to implement a utopian “Christian” worldview.

I will keep you informed as to any shenanigans that might occur regarding Laigle’s Forum as a result of our reports on Rick Warren. So far we have not been threatened directly, although a purpose-driven acolyte did try, in an email to me, to reprove me for writing that previous article. He obviously had not read my article, because his rebuttal did not tally with what I had actually said. Once I showed him that, he slinked away. Shortly thereafter Rick came to the site with his comments, which looked strangely similar to the acolyte’s and were, of course, based on a similar erroneous reading of my column. Was there collusion? You decide.

To any religious bully who has designs on wreaking mischief against Laigle’s Forum, let me remind you that the following article is a religious viewpoint and opinion only and is protected by the First Amendment. If this site is shut down in an attempt at censorship, I will make sure the world soon finds out (Be sure your sins will find you out).

You know what? I kind of hope they try!

Donald Hank, Fundamentalist Christian

 

Consequences of Rick’s Reform Program

Prof. Johan Malan, Middelburg, South Africa (July 2008)

Rick Warren’s ideological approach and religious dogma have the potential of causing substantial political, economic and religious turmoil in countries where his proposed reforms are instituted. He advances a religiously-based social order (or new world order, in a wider context) which is aimed at the establishment of unitary structures with the vision, capacity and means to drive reforms toward greater unity, prosperity, and harmony in society.

Church leaders are specifically challenged to join hands and promote the emerging social order which promises a better life to all. In the process, non-compromising evangelical churches are purposely invaded and changed – or else, if they stubbornly refuse to cooperate – discounted as obsolete forms of “vintage Christianity.” In this way conservative, biblical Christianity is discredited and undermined.

The following facts about Warren’s training, his associates, religious convictions and ideological approach should be considered to better understand his objectives and strategies:

Positive thinking. The ideology of positive thinking was passed on from Norman Vincent Peale, to Robert Schuller, to Rick Warren (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Peaceplan.htm). This way of thinking focuses on the positive aspects of good but ignores the antithesis of evil, sin, judgment, etc. In a Christian context, positive thinking leads to a non-offensive gospel in which nobody is called a hell-deserving sinner. All people are regarded to be inherently good. Positive thinking also distorts the gospel message since the cross and the shed blood of Christ, which are manifestations of God’s judgment upon sin, are avoided in preaching. For more info on this soulless gospel, see http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/RickWarren.htm

Promoting the emerging church. Warren made a very big impact in favor of the emerging church. A staggering 400,000 preachers in 163 countries have been trained through his purpose driven network. For his skills in leadership training, Warren gives most of teh credit to Peter Drucker and Bob Buford. He collaborated with both of them. In an interview he said that stability in any nation is dependent upon a strong and healthy government, a strong and healthy business sector, and strong and healthy churches. He likened it to a three-legged stool. With a view to promoting this view he travels to various countries to address government leaders, business leaders and church leaders to make them aware of their responsibility to work together in realizing the objectives of stable, prosperous, and purpose driven nations. Rick Warren addresses church leaders of all denominations on the subject of social transformation – including Mormons and Catholics – and often emphasizes that doctrine is not as important as remaining focused on service to the community. Read more on his commitment to the emerging church: http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Emerging.htm

A vision for Africa. Both Rick Warren and the like-minded Bruce Wilkinson have a vision for Africa (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Africanvision.htm). Wilkinson focused on South Africa and Swaziland, but underestimated the nature of African politics and ethnicity, and his plans soon ended in disaster (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Dream.htm). Rick concentrated on Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, but there are no indications of the feasibility of his program. The dividing factors in multi-ethnic African countries are simply too deeply-rooted to be instantly replaced with unifying mega-structures.

Dominionism. Warren is totally committed to promoting a man-made kingdom on earth before the second coming of the Lord Jesus. This vision clashes with biblical eschatology, which warns of a deteriorating world that is heading for the great tribulation under the rule of the Antichrist. Not only is Rick’s non-offensive gospel at variance with the evangelical doctrine of salvation, but Rick also discourages his supporters from studying biblical prophecies. The inevitable result is that they end up with a form of godliness which denies the cross and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:5). This humanistic dream offers no spiritual advantages, much less a social utopia that stands any chance of uplifting the sick, the poor, the unemployed, the illiterate, and the politically deprived millions of Africa.

The revolutionary inversion in action

I admit I have got the cart before the horse here a bit. I am now reading an unpublished lecture by this same author that is truly an eye-opener, and it is because of that lengthy but riveting lecture that I was drawn to the column presented below. I don’t want to give away the “plot,” so to speak, but suffice to say Olavo de Carvalho is the only author I know of, and I am tempted to say, is the only scholar anywhere in the world who truly understands the revolutionary mind.

The revolutionary mind — and hence the utterances and writings of revolutionaries ranging from, say, Marx or Lenin to Obama (and also including the Nazis, believe it or not) — is so diverse in its message and presumed ideologies that one is tempted to say there is no unified Left at all. But not so. The commonalities are there and Mr. de Carvalho has isolated and identified them — I believe for the first time.

His thesis is that the revolutionary inverts everything, standing it on its head, but without actually having a unifying ideology or agenda, and this is demonstrable. Look at the USSR, where the slogan was: workers of the world unite. Today’s left is obssessed not with the worker but with, for example, homosexual “rights” and global warming. Different as day and night, and one might say, erroneously, that the old communists and the modern global left are different breeds altogether. But common to both is the inversion of reality — of time, of morality, of subject-object and other things as well.

Conservatives sense this inversion and enough has been written on it, but just what are the things that the Revolution stands on its head that makes them birds of a feather — what makes Stalin or Mao resemble Hitler?  What about the American revolution? Get ready for this: it is not a revolution at all! Author de Carvalho gets to the heart of all this in his world-class lecture, but also in this brief article of his.

Read it at least twice. It is well worth the while.

Lord willing, I will be talking later about Mr. de Carvalho’s eye-opening lecture, which has — no pun intended — revolutionized the way I think about the Left.

Donald Hank

The revolutionary inversion in action

 Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, July 21, 2008

 

I have been presenting, in newspaper columns as well as in lectures and conferences, a few conclusions of an extensive study on the revolutionary mentality. Here are the chief ones:

 

1. The revolutionary mentality, as it appears recorded in the writings and acts of every revolutionary leader since the fifteenth century, without one notable exception, consists not in adhering to this or that concrete politico-social proposal but in a certain structure of apprehension of reality, characterized by the inversion of the causal and temporal order and of the subject-object relation, a variety of secondary inversions deriving therefrom.

 

2. These inversions constitute not only a “spiritual disease,” in the sense given the term by F. W. J. von Schelling and Eric Voegelin, but a mental disease in the strict clinical sense. The revolutionary mentality is a specific variant of “interpretation delusion,” a syndrome of which the pioneering description by the psychiatrists Paul Sérieux and Jean-Marie-Joseph Capgras was presented in their classic book Les Folies Raisonnantes: Le Délire d’Interprétation(Paris: Alcan, 1909; also available online at http://web2.bium.univ-paris5.fr/livanc/?cote=61092&p=1&do=page).

 

Sérieux and Capgras remark: “While most of the dementing systematized psychoses rest upon predominant and almost permanent sensory disorders, all the cases that we have collected under the foregoing term are, almost exclusively, based upon delusional interpretations; hallucinations, episodic whenever existing, play hardly any role here. . . . [The interpretation delusion] is a false reasoning that has as its point of departure a real sensation, an exact fact, which, by virtue of associations of ideas conditional upon tendencies, upon affectivity, takes on, with the aid of erroneous inductions and deductions, a personal significance to the patient. . . . The interpretation delusion is distinguished from hallucination and from illusion, which are sensory disorders. . . . [It also] differs from delusional idea, an imaginary conception that is made up altogether or at least not drawn from an observed fact.” It differs too, according to the authors, from mere false interpretation, that is, from vulgar mistake, for two reasons: First, “the error is said to be, more often than not, rectifiable; the delusional interpretation, incorrigible.” Second, “the error remains isolated, circumscribed; the delusional interpretation tends to diffuse, to radiate, it associates itself with analogous ideas and organizes itself into a system.”

 

In a subsequent article I shall explain the specific difference between revolutionary mentality and the other varieties of interpretation delusion. Here I intend only to illustrate something that I have said and repeated dozens of times: the inversion of reality is so constant and so omnipresent a factor in the revolutionary thought of all periods that samples of it can be found in whatever the mouthpieces of revolutionary ideologies utter about subjects of their political interest. A researcher has such an immense amount of instances at his disposal that the only difficulty for him is the embarras de choix, the choice of the most obvious and illustrative cases.

 

I select here, at random, an article by the world famous “liberation theologist” Leonardo Boff published last July 14 in Jornal do Brasil (see http://jbonline.terra.com.br/editorias/pais/papel/2008/07/14/pais20080714007.html).

 

Quoting Arnold Toynbee, the author says that a constant in the decay of civilizations is the disruption of the balance between the number of challenges and each civilization’s capacity to respond. “When the challenges are such that they exceed the capacity to respond, the civilization starts to decline, enters in crisis, and disappears.”

 

Applying this concept to the description of the current state of affairs, Mr. Boff says: “Our civilizational paradigm, developed in the West and spread throughout the globe, is everywhere failing to hold water. So severe are the global challenges, especially those concerning ecology, energy, food, and population, that we have lost our capacity to deliver a collective and inclusive response. This kind of civilization shall dissolve.”

 

Having reviewed, with the aid of Eric Hobsbawn and Jacques Attali, some possible catastrophic developments of the situation, Mr. Boff enunciates what, in his mind, is the only hope left: “Mankind, if it is unwilling to destroy itself, must devise a world social contract by creating global governance agencies for the collective and equitable management of nature’s scarce resources.” In short, socialist world government.

 

Every fact mentioned in his article is real, but systematically misplaced.

 

1. The challenges that Mr. Boffmentions to illustrate Toynbee’s thesis do not illustrate it, failing by far to bear it out. What Toynbee has in view are not such material difficulties as those referred to, but above all the simultaneous pressure of an “internal proletariat” and of an “external proletariat,” both engaged in destroying the target civilization. The former can be exemplified by the illegal immigrants who receive from the American government every sort of benefits (denied even to legal residents) and thereby grow stronger in order to assault the local culture and fight for the dismemberment of the United States. The “external proletariat” is represented by the multitude of organizations engrossed in a violent and incessant campaign of anti-Americanism, in which Mr. Boff himself, at least on the Brazilian scale, is a prominent voice. The action of the two proletariats is intensely promoted and subsidized by the supporters of world government, who then present the ensuing debilitation of the United States as an involuntary and impersonal phenomenon, disguising the self-fulfilling prophecy through the appeal to “historical constants.”

 

2. Of the four challenges adduced by Mr. Boff – ecology, food, population, and energy crises – the first three affect much less the West than Islamic and Communist countries along with their respective spheres of influence. Never has there been an ecological disaster that ranks in its effects with the Chernobyl explosion or with the widespread pollution in China, nor is there population drama that compares to the Chinese one, nor even a food shortage as scary as that observed in such African countries under Islamic and Communist rule, respectively, as Sudan and Zimbabwe. If ever a paradigm was menaced by the three problems that Mr. Boff indicates, it is the anti-Western paradigm of China, Russia, and Islamic countries. In the West, instead of overpopulation, there is nowadays depopulation; instead of a food shortage, endemic obesity; and nowhere in the world are ecological risks, whether real or imaginary, held under such strict control as in developed capitalist countries. How could a civilization be under threat of imminent extinction when the challenges to it are absent or under control? And how could it be advantageously replaced by some “new paradigm” inspired precisely by the nations that helplessly succumb to these same challenges? The inversion of reality here is so symmetrical, so patent, so literal, in fact so naïve, that one could not wish for a clearer and more didactic instance of interpretation delusion.

 

As to the energy crisis, there is none in the United States, but it is a possible risk, which is becoming imminent thanks to the activity of – you guessed it -the very supporters of world government, the likes of Pelosi and Obama, who by every possible means block new drilling, turning the owner of the largest oil reserves in the world into a nation dependent upon foreign suppliers. These, in their turn, with the money collected from their major customer, finance not only propaganda campaigns, but even terrorist movements against it, while at the same time arming themselves to the teeth for the “people’s war” (General Giap’s expression adopted by Hugo Chávez) against the “imperialist monster” that feeds them. As a result of the “breakdown of the imperial order”- again Mr. Boff’s words – “there is beginning a collective process of chaos. . .  Globalization continues, but balkanization predominates, with regional powers that may give rise to greatly devastating conflicts. . . . This extreme situation calls for an equally extreme solution.” The extreme solution is, obviously, the aforementioned planetary socialism.

 

In other words, of the four “challenges” to Western civilization that, according to Mr. Boff, make it inviable and call for the advent of world government, three exist only among the enemies of the West, and they themselves are inoculating the fourth one, by spreading diseases in order to sell medicine.

 

Mr. Boff, himself one of the agents in the operation, albeit of a lesser kind, is aware of all this. His perception of the facts is exact. It is his interpretation of the picture that is altogether inverted, detail by detail, compulsively so, to create a system of errors in which revolutionary perfidy may be depicted as the highest expression of good and virtue.

 

Translated by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori

 

Up close with the real bad guys

Fellow American: consider what your candidate would do to the killers described in the next column. Would he “negotiate” (=appease) or would he fight?

Donald Hank

Up Close with the Real Bad Guys

by Charles R Lewis

Samir Kantar was released from an Israeli prison yesterday and returned to his Hezbollah comrades in Lebanon (itself a former Christian nation, since absolutely ravaged by that terrorist menagerie), in what was sardonically portrayed as a “prisoner exchange.” In return for the unleashing back on the civilized world of Kantar and four similar demons, Israel received the two soldiers whose kidnapping two years ago provoked a war between that nation and Lebanese Hezbollah – Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

[This five-for-two “swap” was actually more in line with reason than previous “deals,” in which the ratio has often been 500 (terrorists) to 1 (Israeli).]

There was just one hitch in the “mega-trade” (the same one present in some of the above referenced prior “transactions”). “Prisoners” Regev and Golwasser were returned somewhat dead – no doubt having been tortured to slow, agonizing deaths. Contrastingly, the Hezbollah “players” were whole, sound, and healthy, having flourished in Israeli prisons, where their lives were likely much better than the squalor in which Hamas forces its Palestinian subjects to live (for purposes of keeping them desperate enough to continue their campaigns of suicide attacks).

Kantar’s words, upon his return: “We swear by God … to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you [referencing a fallen heinous comrade – now ostensibly busy deflowering his 70-odd maidens – at whose grave the words were spoken].”

That Kantar had been considered worthy of release taxes one’s imagination, in terms of how despicable must have been the crimes of those still imprisoned. Kantar had shot an Israeli father on a beach in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then drowned him, as she was forced to watch. Next he bludgeoned the girl to death via quite a few blows with the butt of his rifle.

He wasn’t finished. He proceeded to the family’s home, where he sought out more victims. The girl’s mother and 2-year-old sister were hiding in a small storage area adjacent to a bedroom. The toddler began to cry, and the mom held her hand over the little girl’s mouth to silence her, accidentally smothering her to death. A few minutes later, Kanter killed an Israeli policeman.

And this was one of the types Israeli Traitor-in-Chief Ehud Olmert felt worthy of release – in exchange for Israeli corpses. Actually makes a sick sort of sense. Israeli corpses – both sides seem to agree – are worth more than these scumbags are, alive and kicking.

Some reflection is in order. These are the sort of people that presidential candidates like Obama, Paul, Baldwin, and Barr tell us we should sit down with and talk to. The ones we supposedly provoked into attacking us on 9/11.

The kind of vermin whom the last three of these candidates depict as victims of American “imperialism.”

The genre that Obama finds so minimally threatening he advocates dismantling our defenses and ceasing any future upgrades.

The term, “animal” is too generous for swine like Kantar and his millions of clones worldwide. “Monster” says it better, but there really isn’t an English word that adequately describes them.

Perhaps “monster” does suffice to characterize the aforementioned “leaders” who would appease them.

I’m not sure.

San Diego gay pride or pedophile pride?

In our column on LDS / FLDS, I had mentioned that the next steps in the liberals’ quest for unlimited sexual freedom will no doubt be legalized polygamy and adult-child sex, with Mormons and pedophiles portrayed as the next “victim” groups. Here are some ominous clues. Without God, folks, there is no redemption for individual souls or the souls of nations. America is headed for the exit. Each one of the dwindling number of activists left in America must now pull out all the stops in both action and prayer.

Donald Hank

 

The James Hartline Report

– On The Frontlines Of The Culture War –

July 18, 2008

 

A Pedophile’s Paradise:

The 2008 San Diego Gay Pride Events

 

Child Sex Advocate Peter Tatchell Will Be San Diego Gay Pride

Parade International Grand Marshal, Making San Diego the

Most Dangerous Place in America For Kids During July 19-20 Events 

 

     In the year 2005, San Diego, California became one of the most dangerous cities in America for children when it was discovered that a nest of pedophiles and sex offenders were working for the non-profit San Diego Gay Pride organization.  Each year, the San Diego Gay Pride festival features events for young minors interwoven with their other porn-filled and sexually explicit adult events.  With the awareness in 2005 that dangerous sex offenders were working in the sexually-charged environment of the San Diego Gay Pride parade and festival, parents, as well as law enforcement, knew that the youth of San Diego were in big trouble.

 

     In one of the most chilling defenses ever for the rights of pedophiles to participate in events involving young minors, the San Diego Gay Pride organization resisted enormous public pressure for weeks to get rid of their pedophile employees and volunteers during the 2005 sex offender scandal.  In the end, to avoid the potential loss of their porn-filled gay pride parade and festival, the organization finally capitulated and removed the known pedophile workers.  Then, of course, it was learned that the pedophile problem was even worse than had been first reported.  The scandal would soon reveal that another child molester, Marty the Clown, was being employed by the San Diego Gay Pride organization to work in the Gay Pride Children’s Garden entertaining young children at the raunchy homosexual festival in the heart of San Diego’s Balboa Park.

 

     The sex offender problem in San Diego’s homosexual pride industry has not been limited to San Diego, California.  It is a moral catastrophe that has surfaced in other cities that promote gay pride events.  According to World Net Daily, in 2007, David Bodoh, a volunteer with Milwaukee’s “PrideFest”, was charged with soliciting a 14 year-old boy over the internet.  Bodoh, whose Native American name is “Crooked Crow”, has volunteered at the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center as well as the Milwaukee Gay Arts Center.

     In the ensuing three years since the San Diego Gay Pride sex offender scandal, public calls for the ending of city support for the porn-filled parade and festival have intensified.  Public concern has been well-justified.  Two years ago, another shocking display of child endangerment was uncovered during the San Diego Gay Pride parade.  The event’s coordinators were allowing an elementary charter school to march young children in the midst of the gay parade that features pornography, nearly nude male strippers, adult escort services and a wide variety of other adult entertainment businesses.  In 2007, the same elementary charter school was once again participating in the parade despite the school being aware of the pornographic nature of the event.

       It was only a matter of time before the sexualization of minors by adults who are connected to the San Diego Gay Pride events would once again became a nightmarish reality.  The San Diego Gay Pride organization just cannot leave the kids alone.  And parents in San Diego, California should be worried — very, very worried this year.  In fact, the immoral assault on the youth of San Diego by the San Diego Gay Pride events in 2008 is coming with a vengeance against parents who are desperately trying to find ways to protect their kids from predators in today’s anti-family culture.

       Incredibly, with so many warnings about the need to protect children from the sexual assaults of adult molesters, the San Diego Gay Pride organization has booked one of Europe’s leading homosexual advocates for lowering the age of consent to 14 as their International Grand Marshal for this year’s San Diego Gay Pride parade.  Peter Tatchell, a homosexual activist from Europe is coming to San Diego to advocate his radicalized vision during the local 2008 gay pride festivities.  On his website, Tatchell states:

  “For 20 years, I have campaigned for a reduction in the age of consent to 14 for both

 gays and straights, backed up by earlier, more explicit sex education to encourage

 wiser, responsible sexual choices. My aim is to end the criminalisation of young

 people involved in consensual behaviour and remove the legal obstacles to the

 provision of condoms and safer sex to the under-16s.”

 

     During her recent speech to introduce the official city council proclamation honoring the 2008 San Diego Gay Pride events, lesbian City Councilwoman Toni Atkins honored Peter Tatchell during her comments. Other incredibly youth-assaultive ideas being promoted by Tatchell on his website include the following:

 

OutRage! advocates an age of consent of 14 for everyone, both gay and straight. PETER TATCHELL argues that young people have a right to make their own sexual choices without being victimised by the law.

 

     Here are a few of the title’s from the writings on Peter Tatchell’s own website that advocate and emphasize sex with minors:

 

1. “SEX ABUSE – CALLS FOR A BRITISH MEGAN’S LAW MISS THE POINT” 

2. “AMNESTY BID FOR GAY SEX “OFFENDERS

3. “SEX RIGHTS FOR THE UNDER-16s

4. “I’M 14, I’M GAY & I WANT A BOYFRIEND

 

     And then there is this horrific and assaultive article by Tatchell entitled: Lowering the unrealistic age of consent will help teens, that was published in March of 2008.  In his article, Tatchell reveals the depth of his depravity by stating:

 

“He claimed that I “recently” advocated sexual rights for the under-16s.  In fact, I first proposed this idea in 1996.  He writes of Myers, stating; “Myers added that I said “14-year-old boys should, if they want, be allowed to have sex with 40-year-old men”. No, I didn’t. My proposed reduction in the age of consent applied to all young people — gay and straight. It was part of a package of ideas to promote the sexual health and welfare of teenagers and to protect them against sexual exploitation.”

 

     For most common sense and decent Americans, Tatchell’s ideals are an American pedophile’s dream come true. In fact, pedophiles in San Diego will be cheering the arrival of this San Diego Gay Pride parade celebrity.  For Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who honored Tatchell during her July 15, 2008 city council speech, it is the same old gay agenda political rhetoric.  During the 2005 San Diego Gay Pride sex offender scandal, Atkins was still encouraging all San Diegans to attend the gay pride festival even though the sex offenders had not even been removed from the event at the time of her advocating attendance of the event.

 

     During the San Diego city council meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, San Diego father and Christian activist Mike Farmer decried the city council when they honored the horrific ideas of Peter Tatchell.  In a stunning blow to the civic sanity and concern for the welfare of San Diego’s Children, the city council voted 7-0 to endorse and celebrate Tatchell and the rest of the San Diego Gay Pride parade, festival and other pornographic events.

 

     Peter Tatchell’s sexual deviancy really knows no boundaries and every parent in San Diego would be well served to keep their kids at home during the July 19-20th Gay Pride festival and parade.  With Tatchell and his supporters walking through the streets of San Diego, there will be no safety for the youth of this eighth largest of American cities.

 

     Tatchell’s intent is monstrously evident.  Here is how Tatchell concludes his article, “Lowering the unrealistic age of consent will help teens”:

 

“Any lowering of the age of consent needs to go hand-in-hand with candid, compulsory sex education in schools. From the age of 12, they need explicit advice on how to deal with sex pests, negotiate safer sex and sustain fulfilling relationships based on mutual consent and respect.”

 

     Peter Tatchell makes no qualms about how he detests Christians who stand in the way of his socialistic, European-style sexualization of young minors.  In a secondary article by Tatchell on his own website entitled, “SEX RIGHTS FOR THE UNDER-16s,” he declares: “Young people under 16 have sexual rights too.”  Making statements that would even make the pedophile-promoting North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) blush, Tatchell states:

 

‘Denying the under-16s the legal right to be sexual, these moralists treat teenagers

who choose to have sex prior to the age of consent as criminals. Blurring the

 differences between consensual and non-consensual sex, they insultingly categorise

 all under-age sex – even when it is consenting and between young people of similar

ages – as child abuse. Their prime concern is not the welfare of young people, but the

 imposition of their own puritan dogma.”

 

     There is a reason that the San Diego Gay Pride organization, the San Diego City Council and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders have so blatantly slapped families in the face by idolizing and promoting Tatchell in this year’s gay pride festival.  Reading Tatchell’s concluding statement in his article, the ideology of the radicalized, child-dangerous philosophy of Tatchell’s local supporters is revealed:

 

“Isn’t it time the lesbian and gay community said, loud and clear, that the under-16s also have sexual rights? Don’t we have a responsibility to defend the right of under-age queers to make their own free, informed choices about when they are ready for sex?”

 

      It is clear that the San Diego Gay Pride organization is not going to convert the vast majority of San Diegans into accepting their dangerous plan to promote the sexualization of minors in their city.   Mike Farmer identified this dynamic in describing the motivation behind the gay pride theme this year when he made the following statement during his powerful six minute city council speech on Tuesday, July 15, 2008:

 

 

“Where do children fit into all of this? It’s simple: this is about indoctrination. 

When you can’t reproduce, you have to recruit or adopt.  And the radicals in the

 LGBT community, headed up by (Councilwoman) Ms. Atkins, know that the 

earlier you can get to the kids, the easier it is to mold their thinking.”

 

      The San Diego gay rights movement, much like its national brethren, is creating in America the equivalent of a collective dictatorship.  What Nazi Germany could not accomplish, what the Japanese leaders of WWII could not force upon the world, and what the Soviet Union fought and failed to impose for seventy years, the radical gay movement is pushing forward in America.  A forced ideology, an enemy from within America’s own borders, that seeks by government imposition, to enshrine a collective dictatorship where the will of a few sexual deviant ideologues will be enthroned against a politically-castrated populace.

 

      The San Diego Gay Pride festival this week seeks to subject San Diego’s families and children to a sexual tyranny so terrible, that in its full maturity, only an act of God will stop it.  This is exactly why God had to intrude on the forced rape that was occurring in the ancient city of Sodom.

 

      With the help of a city council that has politically prostituted itself to the political machine of the San Diego Gay Pride movement, the advocates of the gay pride festival and parade will continue to manipulate the city will false presentations of gay victimizations as a deceptive tool for garnering media and some public sympathy.  Among anti-American elites who carry the progressive gay rights banner for the liberal gay pride festivals and parades, their hate of traditional American values will continue to show up each year with city proclamations honoring people like European child sex advocate Peter Tatchell.

 

     With the intense attempts to emasculate the spineless Republican San Diego City Councilmembers who voted in support of Tatchell and the San Diego Gay Pride proclamation, Democratic Councilwomen Toni Atkins and Donna Frye have refused to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of San Diego parents with children who despise the sexual activities of the porn-filled gay pride events.

 

      Local San Diego community activist James Hartline considers this year’s San Diego Gay Pride festival and parade to be, perhaps, the most dangerous for children in the 34-year history of the event.  “Peter Tatchell being given a prominent role in the event is an incredibly dangerous assault on San Diego’s families.  To have the city council endorse Tatchell after they were informed of Tatchell’s history of promoting sex among young minors, tells me that our city council has become morally castrated and a present danger to the citizens of San Diego,” says Hartline.

 

     To break the corrupt stranglehold that the radical gay movement has on the San Diego City Council, Hartline believes that a sovereign act of God will have to occur.  “The San Diego City Council has gone too far down the path of moral darkness and I believe with the endorsement of Peter Tatchell, the city council has now become reprobate,” adds Hartline.

 

     James Hartline is calling on all Christians in San Diego and America to pray and fast on Saturday, July 19, 2008 to break the hold that sexually immorality has on San Diego and its government.

 

This has been an Exclusive James Hartline Report

Now Read Daily By Over 20,000 Concerned Citizens of Conviction!

 

I Am Making My Stand in 2008!

Have You Started Making Yours Yet?

 

You can read other major Christian Conservative news stories

at California Christian News

 

James Hartline, Publisher

The James Hartline Report

Educating The Church

Fighting For Our Generation

619-255-9378

or

619-793-9661

 

FLDS case threatens child welfare. TAKE ACTION

It’s a good thing we don’t depend on public support to continue our work here at Laigle’s. With articles like the following we’d probably lose a lot of support.

You know what? I don’t care. We are here to tell it as it is, no holds barred.

You know what worries me about this ElDorado case in Texas? I am certain, 100% sure, that it is a foot in the door for legalized polygamy and adult-child  sex! This is where the FLDS is taking my country. By themselves, they couldn’t do it. But liberals like the idea of unlimited sexual freedom, and when it comes to this issue, child protection suddenly is not very important.  They would love to add Mormons to their growing list of “victim” groups to “protect” by making you more vulnerable. Like they “protect” homosexuals by making it almost impossible for anyone to mention the extreme dangers of “gay” sex.

I don’t think you could be happy with the prospects of living in a country where your children had no legal protection from sexual predators, and I sure as heck am not. I do not want to live in a country modeled after the FLDS practices and doctrines. But wait: did you know that mainstream Mormon has not fully condemned polygamy? For their leadership, the only reason for abstaining from the practice is the fact that the authorities have banned it. What other beliefs are they hiding behind the clerical veil?

For the reasons enumerated above, I have decided to run what is probably he most controversial column ever to appear at Laigle’s Forum.

Quote:

Tell the Texas Governor in your own words how you support indictments for the criminal behaviors for the FLDS ElDorado, TX Case.  Ask him to inform of any other official office for you to voice your opinion about this, how to inform the Grand Jury process. 

See the information about the Governor’s mansion burning down two days before the children were returned to YFZ and express your concern

Texas governor Perry’s phone lines:

 

*       Citizen’s Assistance Hotline: (800) 843-5789
[for Texas callers]

*       Citizen’s Opinion Hotline: (800) 252-9600
[for Texas callers]

*       Citizen’s Assistance andOpinion Hotline: (512) 463-1782
[for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers]

*       Office of the Governor Main Switchboard: (512) 463-2000
[office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST]

*       Citizen’s Assistance Telecommunications Device
If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), call
711 to reach Relay Texas

 

Donald Hank

 Is Mormon a cult?

By Marilyn Ann Stacy

 

The tradition of Judeo-Christian religion recognizes the Supreme Being as creating all, being ever present and continuing his creation.   Psalms 119:89, “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven,”  is explained  in The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, by Rabbi Michael L. Munk:  “God’s utterance that created heaven also created everything associated with it…..God’s original Ten Utterances are repeated constantly in the sense that the Divine will of the original six days remains in force.  Otherwise, everything would revert to the nothingness of before Creation.”  We were given words to live by.  We develop a relationship with our Creator to serve our purpose in this life.  Added to that tradition is the Son of our Creator.   Relying on the words of human beings motivated by selfish desires to direct worship makes a religion a cult. 

Another mark of a cult is their challenge to revered religions through mind control techniques of the cult’s invention.  A trusted evangelical source, the Index of Cults and Religions, at Watchman Fellowship online, explains mind control of this kind.

Evidence of secular influences further separates cults from bona fide religion. Looking through the Book of Mormon (BOM), by Joseph Smith, we see evidence of secular influences. A story about Golden Plates, for example, was written at the time of Gold Rush.  Further, Mormon community Governance includes an interesting version of Communism from BOM (D&C 121:39), where a statement has similarities to those of anarchist Bakunin.  Joseph Smith includes aspects of Swedenborg’s philosophy.  Like Mohammed, Smith feigns authenticity with borrowed stories from Jewish traditions but clearly distorts them to fit his unsavory agenda (BTW, have you noticed the multiple similarities between Mormon and Islam?).   The BOM was rewritten in 1978 to eliminate references to Smith’s racism toward people of color.  If inspired from above, the BOM racism would not have been there in the first place.  Unlike the Bible, which for millennia, displayed the internal consistency expected of an authentic inspired religious canon, the famous dreams of Joseph Smith and Mohammed were not prefaced by history.  Further, their moral trend of licentious polygamy casts doubt on their authenticity as inspired writings.

The FLDS (Fundamental Latter Day Saints) court case focuses on prosecuting criminal activities set forth in D&C (Doctrines and Covenants) of the BOM (Book of Mormon) 132: 61, known as the Plurality of Wives.  The BOM for FLDS and LDS (Church of Latter Day Saints) contains D&C 132:61.  Although this doctrine is openly practiced only by FLDS today, surprisingly, mainstream LDS has never renounced polygamy.  LDS claims to refrain from practice due to government insistence but does practice sealed-forever spiritual marriages in secret or claims to wait to practice them in heaven after death.  The former Mormon kindred spirit (KS) sources explain that polygamy continues in secret via sealed spiritual celestial marriages that are consummated here or in the hereafter. As the KS also explains, Mormons teach that the authorities will have to answer to God for their “sin” of denying them the practice of their religion. Until D&C 132 is removed from the BOM, the doctrines of FLDS and LDS are substantially the same.  Yet, without section 132, there is no basis for the BOM.  To be saved in Mormon depends on the number of progeny produced.  A position paper from Concerned Citizens Growth Ministries states: “What women have to look forward to is eternal pregnancy.”  LDS is a clearly a “Christian” cult.

There is also a resemblance of perverse ideologies, style, personas, vocabularies, and Public Relations techniques between the Left and Mormon.  The sexual assault of underage girls uncovered in the ElDorado case reminds us of the teachings of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).  A child bride’s testimony from a previous 2006 Grand Jury reveals:  “We were taught that we would go to hell” for speaking out, she said. “After I got away from that religion, I still felt like I would be damned if I ‘spoke out’ because that’s just how I was raised.” The Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steven F. Conn, presiding over the case, summed up the issue: It is whether underage girls are going to be protected by society from engaging in sexual relationships outside of the marital relationship

On July 22, 2008, the Grand Jury for the FLDS case regarding the April 3, 2008 raid at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch at Eldorado, Texas, has the opportunity to issue indictments to enforce the law.  There is potential to reverse the moral decline in law that started with Rowe v Wade.  The media does not advise us on religious matters, which they deem outside their purview.  Thus we do not hear about Mormons hiding behind ” religion” to avoid judgment for actual or potential criminal behavior. 

Your voice counts. The law is set up to respond, provide indictments, and to follow through with convictions.  Once the convictions are a reality, we can address our religious leaders on the issue of cults.  For now, we need to focus directly upon obtaining justice through the law, which depends in large part on public support. 

Focus should be on the prosecution of the child abuse crimes:  sexual assault of underage girls, the practice of throwing boys away because they compete with older men for child brides, and the practice of lying to authorities that FLDS calls “bleeding the beast,” which is lying to procure welfare money. 

If you agree that these abuses cannot stand, demand that the court of Texas secure the indictments.  The available briefs of this case make it apparent that Judge Barbara Walther should receive supportive input from the public.

Texas Governor Perry’s website is linked at the end of this paragraph.  Although the Governor supported the removal of the children from the YFZ,, not enough public support was shown at his website. The children had to be returned to the abusive ranch where child abuse laws are ignored.

Tell the Texas Governor in your own words how you support indictments for the criminal behaviors for the FLDS ElDorado, TX Case.  Ask him to inform of any other official office for you to voice your opinion about this, and how to inform the Grand Jury process. 

See the information about the Governor’s mansion burning down two days before the children were returned to YFZ and express your concern.  Remember to include this with your message:   If my address is revealed to any party requesting information via the Freedom of Information Act, I require notice. 

Don’t expect a group that considers child abuse as part of their religious creed to play nice!

Related links:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/22/fbi-system.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/22/205017.sh4
9/11/1973 Chilean Massacre – Mormon CIA taking over the Jesuits & Catholic in South America
http://www.mormon.citymax.com/MittMormon.html

 To post a comment from the main page, click on the live-link title at the top. You will see a comment box at the bottom. Comments are moderated. Be polite and add something relevant. If you wish to rebut, focus on showing how you think the writer is wrong and provide details. Thanks!

The roots of anti-energy madness

The roots of anti-energy madness

By Donald Hank

 The Madwoman: What are they looking for? Did they lose something?

Pierre: They’re looking for oil.

The Madwoman: Strange! What do they want to make with it?

Pierre: The things people make with oil. Misery. War. Ugliness. A miserable world.

These lines are the most frequently quoted by literature critics writing about the famous play “La folle de Chaillot” (The Madwoman of Chaillot), written by Jean Giraudoux in 1944. Since the late 40s the play has been a constant favorite throughout Europe and on college campuses in the US. For example, an early reference to a US production of the play goes back to 1958 (at MIT). In 1969, an English-language adaptation was made into a movie starring Katherine Hepburn. till going strong, it was staged, for example, at Knox College last year and at the Ojai Community Theater in Ventura County, CA, just this year.

In the play, the Madwoman (Countess Aurelia) and her friends, all street people, discover that a group of rich investors have discovered oil under the streets of Paris and have contrived to lay claim to it without the knowledge or consent of the Parisians. In the end, Aurelia and her co-conspirators trick the investors to enter her home as a kind of promotional event.  The investors are then permanently barricaded inside and hence prevented from doing further harm.

The above lines from the play best reflect the Left’s visceral reaction to the oil industry and the attitudes behind their energy hatred.

Proof that the play is still prized as an anti-oil propaganda piece, and not merely as ars gratia artis (art for its own sake), is a review of the above-mentioned recent staging appearing in the Ventura County Star under the title line “Madwoman uses wit to skewer the rich,” in which we read:

Venture capitalists trample over the poor.

Oil fuels war. Greed is good.

Snatched from today’s headlines? Well, maybe, but those themes are also central to “The Madwoman of Chaillot,” Jean Giraudoux’s fanciful satire written in 1944 while his beloved France was under Nazi occupation, then staged a year later after his death at age 62. Giraudoux wrote many colorful and witty works, but “Madwoman” stands out for its wisdom and timeliness, then and now.

Accordingly, for the Left, oil and the greedy oil tycoons are synonymous with misery, war and ugliness, while the energy-hating Left is portrayed as wise and ever timely.  Further, the above-cited trite lines, which we are never allowed to forget, and are touted as “wit,” enshrine the idea of oil as an evil tool in the hands of the rich. It is in large part this irrational perception on the part of madmen, as fancifully reflected by a Parisian playwright in the last century, that today prompts the Left in Congress to reject drilling for oil, building refineries, or making travel affordable in America and elsewhere. As usual, it is the rich snobs of far-left academe and Hollywood who support an idea that ultimately deprives the poor and middle class of a decent standard of living, all the while hypocritically blaming other rich people – those who earn their wealth on the free market – for somehow causing their misery. For them, Giraudoux’s play is a kind of religious canon and as such obviates any further rationale for the ideas it represents. Lucky for them.

Like the Madwoman of Chaillot, today’s Left in Congress, while fueling one economic crisis after another, manage to cast themselves in the role of saviors while making the capitalists who supply us with ever scarcer but desperately needed energy look like villains. A perfect example is the call for greater windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

But are the battle lines for vs against affordable energy really so clearly marked out that we can unequivocally blame the Left for the mess we’re in?

A recent article by Paul Weyrich leaves little doubt that they are.  Quoting figures submitted by Representative Roy Blunt, Weyrich shows, for example, that:

“… for the past 14 years, 91% of House Republicans voted to develop oil at ANWR while 86% of Democrats opposed drilling there…” 

 Other categories from Weyrich’s article:

Coal liquefaction: 78% of Democrats opposed vs 97% of Republicans in favor.

Oil exploration of Outer Continental Shelf: 81% of House Republicans “yes,” 83% of House Democrats “no.”

Increased refinery capacity: 97% of House Republicans “yes,” 96% of House Democrats “no.”

Development of oil and gas reserves: 91% of Republicans “yes,” 86% of Democrats “no.”

By refusing to allow oil drilling in ANWR and off-shore, shale oil exploitation, or construction of nuclear power plants or new refineries, and through various efforts to tax energy, such as proposals to slap “carbon footprint” taxes on frequent flyers and big-car owners, or by intricate schemes of enforced purchase of carbon credits, the Left, in tandem with OPEC, has managed to impoverish the entire world within about the space of a year, severely reducing the size of the middle class everywhere. To add insult to injury, the greens’ insistence on converting corn, sugar cane and other staple crops into fuel (as though the burning of ethanol did not produce CO2!) has helped create a worldwide crisis in food prices.

None of these untoward side effects of their snake oil remedies faze the Left, who continue to steadfastly blame economic woes on the free-market suppliers of goods rather than on manipulators in government who throttle the trade in those goods by enacting a maze of often contradictory regulations, blocking exploitation of energy sources and imposing new tax burdens on already-dear energy.

As for “The Madwoman of Chaillot,” if an acquaintance should happen to enthusiastically mention having seen this play somewhere, be sure to ask:

Did you ride to the theater on your bike or did you walk?

 

Transfiguring the disaster

A reader left a comment at a recent column of mine saying she was offended that I dared to suggest that the Left’s support for “gay marriage” was similar to their refusal to allow the free market to work in the extraction of oil on US territory. How does one go about compressing the distillate of a century of history in a paragraph? I told her simply to pay attention to the columns by Olavo de Carvalho, who arguably knows more about the Left than any other living human being. Perhaps this column will help broaden Americans’ view of what the Left is really all about, namely, that it is not about human rights for anyone but rather sowing disaster. When you hear someone pushing a new “right,” look out for that disaster!

Reader Hermes de Alzevedo recently suggested I read the following article. When I did I couldn’t help but think of how Bill Clinton shamelessly took credit for reforming welfare, when in fact it was his party that had caused the disaster in the first place and the opposition who forced him to reform it. At no time did any Democrat admit that welfare was a disaster. Instead the emphasis was on how their party had so brilliantly achieved this wonderful victory over the monster that no one dared to say was of their own creation.

As Mr. de Carvalho shows elsewhere, and as Paul Weyrich lately pointed out, the main reason the Left can do its dirty work almost unopposed is the cooperation it receives from mainstream “conservatives.”

The column was written in 2001, but is as timely now as ever.

Remember this quote:

“…but they [the Left] also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.”

I know, folks, it is absurd that any group, especially one this large and powerful and as college “educated,” could actually want to destroy all that is good and decent, and most of you will steadfastly refuse to believe it. Just as Neville Chamberlain and the flower children of his day refused to believe that Hitler could be such a monster.

And by the time they did it was too late.

Donald Hank

 

 Transfiguring the disaster

OLAVO DE CARVALHO
O Globo, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Every time the Left wants to impose a new item of their program, they say it is the only way to cure certain maladies. Invariably, when the proposition wins out, the maladies it proposed to eliminate become worse. The normal thing to do under such circumstances would be to lay the responsibility for the disaster on the Left. But this never happens, for at once the original legitimizing argument disappears from the repertoire and is substituted by a new system of allegations, which celebrates failure as success or as a historical necessity that could not be avoided.

No one will understand the first thing about the history of the 20th century – or the beginning of the 21st – if they do not know this retroactive justification mechanism by which the Left makes the people work for non-declared goals that would scandalize them if they knew their identity and that can only be reached through the indirect route of dangling the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose.

Some examples will make this clearer.

1) When the Communist Party released its program for the destruction of the “bourgeois” family institutions, laying the groundwork for what would later be “sexual liberation,” its main allegation, elaborated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, was that homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism etc. were fruits of repressive patriarchal education. Once the cause were eliminated, these deviant behaviors would tend to disappear from the social scene. Well, the last remnants of patriarchal values were expelled from western education between the seventies and the eighties, and what did we see right afterwards? The dissemination, on an apocalyptic scale, of the same behaviors they promised to eliminate.  Once the results were obtained, these behaviors started to be celebrated as healthy, honorable and meritorious, and all criticism of them is now frowned upon – sometimes even under penalty of law – as an intolerable abuse and attack against human rights.

2) When the international Left started to fight for the legalization of abortion, one of their main arguments was that the great number of abortions was due to the prohibition thereof, which facilitated the action of charlatans, crooks and all kinds of untrained individuals. Legalization, it was promised, would force the abortion to be performed under medically acceptable conditions, thereby lowering the number of cases. What was the result? In the first year, the number of abortions in the USA went from 100 thousand to 1 million, and it never stopped going up to this day. At least 30 million babies were already sacrificed, while at the same time, the apologists of legalization, instead of admitting the fallacy of their initial argument, now celebrate the fact, working to eliminate and criminalize any criticism of the new state of affairs.

3) When the North-American left devised the policy of quotas and indemnification known as “affirmative action,” they alleged it would diminish crime in the black community. After the new policy was made official, the number of crimes committed by black men against white men arose significantly, according to statistics from the FBI. What did the apostles of this “affirmative action” do then? Did they recognize that to reinforce the feeling of racial identity was to stimulate prejudices and racial conflicts? Nah. They celebrated the increase in hostilities as progress in democracy.

4) When, in an attempt to destroy the North-American tradition of considering education a duty of the community, the churches and the family rather than of the State, the North-American left demanded bureaucratization of teaching, one of its prime arguments was that juvenile delinquency could be controlled only by an educational action of the State. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1980, the USA had for the first time a Department of Education and uniform teaching programs. Two decades later, delinquency among children and adolescents is not only growing much faster than before, but has also adopted the public schools as its headquarters, which have now become danger zones, to the point where, at the beginning of the year, the Mayor’s office in New York was privatizing its schools because of the impossibility of controlling the violence inside them. In answer to that, what did the left do? Did it admit failure? No. It is fighting for State uniformity of teaching on a world level.

5) In Brazil, the only way of lowering violence in the rural areas, so said the Left, was to give land and money to the MST (Movimento Sem Terra, or Landless Movement). Very well, the land was given – it was the greatest distribution of land in all human history, with lots of money behind it. Violence has not lessened: it has increased a lot. Does the Left admit its mistake? No. It organizes violence and celebrates it as the attainment of a new historic stage in the fight for socialism.

The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum – and notice I deliberately avoided mentioning extreme cases that occurred inside socialist countries themselves, such as the collectivization of agriculture in USSR, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cuban Revolution, etc., sticking to facts originating in the capitalist world.

The promise of salvation, transfigured into disaster and followed by a change in the discourse to legitimize it, has been, in sum, the constant and essential modus agendi of the international Left for a century, and we see no sign of any leftist mentor having any conscience problems with this. Au contraire, all of them continue to promise the solution to maladies, while having readied in their portfolios the future legitimization of the enlarged maladies. They promise to lower drug consumption through liberalization, to control corruption through “participative budgeting,” to repress delinquency through the disarming of civilians or through Leninist “alternative law,” which incriminates the social status of the defendant rather than his criminal act. They know perfectly well where this all will take us – but they also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire. 

What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that?

 Olavo de Carvalho

 Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), July 9th 2008

             Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin.  The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

            For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

            With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office.  In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?” 

            Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

            Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

            Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths.  Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

            Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it

Airlines united behind questionable economics. TAKE ACTION

Airlines united behind questionable economics

by Donald Hank


We urge our readers to go to the site linked below and leave a post asking why the members of the airline-supported forum StopOilSpeculationNow are so preoccupied with only one minor aspect of the fuel price crisis, namely, speculation in the prices.

Tell them ending speculation will not help extract desperately needed oil from US territory where it lies going to waste. Tell them it will not help build much-needed domestic refining capacity.

This forum StopOilSpeculationNow is taking the viewpoint that the market must be brought under government control, something the Democrats will agree with, but is ignoring the common sense viewpoint and the facts: nuclear power would conserve fossil fuel by supplanting oil-burning power generation, drilling for oil in US territory and exploiting shale oil deposits would counterbalance the effects of the OPEC monopoly, and building refineries here would make us less dependent on other nations and reduce the price of refined petroleum products. The proposed “carbon footprint” tax would have additional disastrous effects on the airline industry, but their execs ignore this problem.

By pretending that the entire problem is due to a minor factor that requires government control of the economy, StopOilSpeculationNow is clearly playing politics. Indeed the current administration must take much of the blame for the oil crisis, but not so much for its failure to stop speculation but rather because it fails to let the free market sort out the problem free of excessive and often self-contradictory environmental concerns. Indeed, the US, while refusing to exploit off-shore oil on the pretext of environmental concerns, has lodged no protest against foreign oil companies who explore for oil off our shores (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico). In fact, if China succeeds in finding oil there, with its deplorable record on the environment, we are sure to see much more pollution than if US companies had been allowed to exploit these deposits.

Background:

On July 9, 2008, I received a letter from Delta Airlines urging me to join in a political action aimed at motivating Congress to stop oil speculation, which, according to the letter, is driving up the price of oil as much as $30 to $60 a barrel. These figures were supposedly based on analyses by “market experts.”

I was surprised to learn this and am as concerned as the next guy about anything that makes oil more expensive. Nor do I have any sympathy for speculators. If speculation is indeed driving up oil prices as much as $30-60 a barrel, the government may be justified in taking a position on this.

But I was put off by the fact that there was no mention of anything but a regulatory solution to a free market problem, particularly at a time when our government refuses to drill for oil in our territory or build more refineries, and by the lack of supporting details such as the names of the scholars behind the studies showing this and references to them.

I went to the web site linked in the letter www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com and found that almost every major airline was supporting this anti-speculation action.

But I was shocked that not one of the CEOs who had signed the letter was interested in any solution other than adding a new regulation to stop speculation. There was no mention of drilling for US oil or building more refining capacity or lowering energy taxes and opposing the foolish “carbon footprint” taxes that have been proposed. A recent article by Paul Weyrich shows that every avenue for increasing US oil independence has been blocked by Democrats in Congress, whose “no” votes make up as much as 97% of all Democrat votes, whereas the Republican situation is the exact inverse. Further, some oil experts insist that speculation is not really a major culprit.

But besides that, how could the US government stop speculation when much of it is under foreign jurisdiction? Oh, that’s right. We are moving toward a one-world government that can fix everything.

At any rate, all of the above makes me very suspicious about these airline CEOs’ motivation.

It was a surrealistic experience to see the entire air travel industry lined up behind a proposal for more regulation rather than less. It appears, at leasst on the surface, as if the entire industry is in the hands of Democrats who are opposed to a free market solution and who are trying to make free market actors look like the sole cause of our current economic malaise while giving anti-energy politicians a pass. This is not all that surprising when you consider how American Airlines benefitted from millions of dollars in corporate welfare after the 911 attacks.

But add this to the fact that CEOs of major industries like McDonald’s and Ford have foolishly supported gay sex and same sex “marriage,” and it is easy to see that our economy is far from being in the hands of grassroots Americans.

Here is the letter:

 

Hello Mr. Hank,

Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers.

Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com