The central “gay” marriage issue no one discusses

The “gay” marriage issue no one discusses

by Donald Hank

A reader alerted me to an article in a local paper discussing the recent culture war between homosexual activists and Prop 8 supporters in California. The author, a Mr. Charles Haynes, focused entirely on the tone of the discussion, completely ignoring the content.

You can read the article here.

I responded to the author as follows:

Hello Mr Haynes,

Your article covers a lot of territory but ignores a detail which can provide some insight perhaps.

I am a technical translator by trade and have a reading knowledge of numerous languages, including 2 Asian ones.

Now in each of these – and in all 600+ languages in the world – there is a word that is the equivalent to our word “marriage.” Please prepare yourself for an amazing revelation, Sir:

In ALL of these world languages, there is a word equivalent to our word marriage and it means a union between a man and a women. In NONE of these languages is there a word that means approximately the same as our word “marriage” but additionally means a union between 2 people of the same sex.

Thus, when proponents of same-sex “marriage” say they are fighting for rights, that is technically true.

However, the right they are fighting for is the right to change all of human language arbitrarily to suit their own particular situations, NOT the right to be equal.

I say “arbitrarily” because to be completely equal, this new unprecedented “right” would have to encompass not only homosexuality but all kinds of sexual relationships, including bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia, pederasty, sex slavery, rape and so on, which no society will probably ever condone.

Clearly, Sir, the idea of equality here is simply a smokescreen and nothing more.

I am at a loss to explain how so many otherwise intelligent writers miss this central issue while so articulately discussing all the minor trivia surrounding it.


Don Hank

Executive editor

subsequent addendum of 9-14-2016:

Here is where libertarians fail in defending liberty:

The government coerces everyone to recognize a new revolutionary definition of marriage, even against their religious beliefs, and the libertarians do not object to this. Yet this is big government, which they claim to oppose, repeating the meme that the government should stay out of our lives.

Thus, libertarians selectively support sexual freedom but oppose religious freedom.


Mr Hanyes’ response:

Thank you for writing.  As you may know, “marriage” has been redefined often in history.  Not so very long ago, “marriage” was understood as a contract involving property (the wife).  Of course, some cultures still treat women as property today.  I would also point out that in much of the Islamic world (a considerable part of the world’s population), a man may have up to four wives. I live in Virginia where, until fairly recently, mixed race marriages were illegal — not recognized as “marriage” by law.  So marriage has meant (still means) different things in different times and places.  The slippery slope argument you advance is similar to the “parade of horribles” arguments advanced against mixed race marriages.  It failed then, and I suspect it will fail again.  Societies do indeed decide what is in the best interest of people, especially children.  Lines are drawn against harm to others, abuse of children, etc.  To suggest that if we give legal recognition to committed same-sex relationships, we would be compelled to erase all lines is absurd in my view.  CH

Charles Haynes
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202/292-6293 – office

Hello Charles,

I appreciate your response very much. Due to the extreme volatility of this issue I rarely have the opportunity to engage in serious dialogue on it. Most interlocutors on the subject are content to hurl a few invectives and insults and run away, like a bandit in a western movie who runs out of ammo and throws his six-shooter at the sheriff and posse before taking it on the lam. You are a rare exception.

The issue of interracial marriage in any given society has not really affected the definition of marriage per se as you suggest. Unlike same-sex unions, interracial marriage has fallen under the definition of marriage throughout time, for example, 4,000 years ago when Moses took an Ethiopian wife. Before legalization of interracial marriage, Americans were aware that Brazilians intermarried among the races and accepted these arrangements as marriages, whether they liked them or not. Nor did natural societies truly accept the notion of “owning” a woman, and the languages of the world do not define marriage as an ownership contract. There was in fact an African society that was truly matriarchal in that the women had several husbands. Feminist lore has it (whether factually or not) that the American Indians were semi-matriarchal as well, with women exercising ownership of plots of land and men owning nothing. If you really believe marriage was ever an ownership contract in the West, then you need to read “The Myth of Male Power” by feminist Dr. Warren Farrell, who ably demonstrates that marriage, far from being exploitive, was devised universally for the purpose of protecting women and offers the woman more protection than it does the man (who is always the one designated to die in wars to protect her). And if you think Asia has that ownership notion, then you have never lived in Asia, where women universally rule the roost (I lived in Asia for 3 years studying Chinese and Japanese).

Incidentally, I would caution anyone in favor of same-sex marriage to be careful when choosing examples of marriage definitions from the Muslim culture, because Sharia law calls for the death of all homosexuals. Thus the Muslim culture is not compatible with your support of homosexual marriage so using it as a source of supporting examples is like drawing water from a poisoned well.

But even so, the whole idea of marriage being somewhat different between cultures is not germane because the issue is whether by definition a man can marry another man, or a woman another woman, and is unrelated to these peripheral issues that you mention. Marriage has universally been a heterosexual arrangement despite all those red herrings. Thus to legalize same-sex “marriage” is to tamper with language in a dangerous way that invites unintended consequences to an unprecedented extent, because, ultimately, such legalization is tantamount to redefining marriage as I said in my first email, and you have not proved otherwise.

When you bring up the topic of children, you really open up a can of worms, because I cannot think of anything more abusive to children than deliberately siring them artificially, as is now increasingly done in same-sex relationships, and thereby eliminating in utero, so to speak, the possibility of knowing their mother or father, something all children have a right to barring unusual circumstances such as death of a parent.

I always like to ask people who claim they are in favor of same-sex “families” if they would be willing to stipulate in their last will and testament that, in the event of both parents’ death, they would prefer to have their children adopted by a “gay” couple rather than a straight couple. And if so, why or if not, why not?

I also ask them if they would prefer to have been brought up in a same-sex home rather than a mother-father home. And if so, why or if not, why not? (In other words, did you really hate one of your parents that much?)

I think modern liberals (I was one for 40 years, being a late maturer) often advocate things for children that they themselves would find it hard — or impossible — to tolerate.

It is always easy to sit down and write a law that forces helpless children to tolerate things they themselves would not want in order to please some powerful interest group that might otherwise threaten their livelihood (journalism or the like), for example, but I fail to detect any honor in this cowardly practice.

As for your mention of “slippery slope,” that was not my argument.

If you really and truly believe, however, that same-sex adoption (which would automatically be legal if same-sex marriage were legal) is acceptable, then I would ask you to explain why pederasty is objectively wrong. Remember that answers like “well, it is just wrong and that’s all there is to it” are the kind of answers the pro-gay marriage groups have been rejecting — or should I say will not tolerate, with reference to their issues, and might support the other side of the argument.

It is a facile argument to say: “To suggest that if we give legal recognition to committed same-sex relationships, we would be compelled to erase all lines is absurd in my view.”

However, why is it absurd? To add “in my view” suggests you have some special authority to say this, but do you?

If this is absurd, couldn’t we just as easily say that same-sex marriage absurdly erases lines that have been in place for a sound purpose since the beginning of recorded history?

Finally, lest you think pederasty is not a threat, you should read the book “Woman Hating” by feminist icon Andrea Dworkin, who unabashedly condones parent-child incest therein and quotes other “authorities” such as Allen Ginsberg who also condone it. And of course, you need to visit the NAMBLA site to see how persuasive their arguments are — and how eerily similar to the ‘gay’ marriage arguments. (You will need to register first).

I remain respectfully unswayed.



[Charles Haynes wrote a further response that we will save for a future edition of Laigle’s Forum]

Eyewitness accounts of the dying of the West

Eyewitness accounts of the dying of the West

Dear reader, I know that many of you could have written accounts very similar to those presented below, which are an exchange between myself and a Canadian friend, who, like myself, was virtually thrown headfirst into the fight for freedom by a surrealistic encounter with the “family” court system.

The main difference is perhaps that some readers are too young to remember the vibrancy of our Western culture until about the 60s and 70s.

I remember it well and I remember when it started to vanish and be replaced with a culture of false “freedom,” false because it was a freedom devoid of responsibility and, yes, I daresay, of happiness.

In the early 80s I discovered at some point that one of my employees was coming in late every Monday morning and was looking like she’d been dragged through a knothole. She was bereft of any spiritual happiness and just mechanically went about her job. I found out from one of her co-workers that she and her husband had been spending every weekend partying. They had been taking drugs and he had been sharing her with his male friends.

My own life was not much happier because I shared their philosophy: life is short, ends with death and anyone who does not squeeze out every last drop of pleasure from this life is a fool. More than a fool, such a person is committing a kind of sin against mankind, failing to take full advantage of life. That is the post-modern philosophy, isn’t it?

It was a classic case of pleasure without joy, almost a dutiful kind of pleasure because you felt you owed it to someone to have this pleasure or you needed to exercise your right to do as you pleased, perhaps because otherwise you feared someone would deprive you and others of the “right” to have such misery that you imagined to be fun.

If it sounds like I am talking nonsense, it is because I am describing the culture of the post-modern West, the ultimate absurdity, which has led to a decimation of our population centers, the hollowing out of our souls, a lonely, childless existence for millions of adults.

In short a life without God.

Donald Hank


Walter writes:

Don, last year Ruth and I drove to Michigan to meet with my brother and one of his sons and the latter’s family.  I was amazed, especially as we drove around the lower edge of Lake Michigan towards Detroit, to what extent the infrastructure had deteriorated.  The situation impressed me as being worse than it was in East Germany when I travelled there in 1995.  Mind you, while then there was a massive construction boom going on, in West Germany (especially noticeable in my home town of Duesseldorf) the infrastructure was beginning to deteriorate.  For
example, it appeared that maintaining the landscaping of public property, such as parks, of whom some portion were being totally neglected due to budget cuts, was the first to go.  That really struck me, as when we were there in 1984, things were far more vibrant. However, in 1984 there were not yet more dogs than children.
To come back to the subject of Detroit for the moment, many of the buildings downtown were boarded up.  There was little pedestrian traffic and no problem finding parking in the streets.  It seemed to me that of the GM Headquarters building only about 20 percent were occupied.  We visited Ford and found that apparently its major corporate mission was not to build vehicles but to promote environmentalism (one-third of the toxic trinity of humanicide — the other two being multiculturalism and feminism, but, of course, that was not how that was being presented) [I might add that Ford was also hot in pursuit of “gay” marriage until the AFA applied sufficient pressure – DH].  At any rate, Ford said nothing about the massive and progressive layoffs that were in the process of being undertaken, but Ford said a lot about how the construction of bogs on the roofs of its factory buildings would save the environment at Dearborn.  That seems to me like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
As a last thought on all of that, a couple of years ago I spoke with one of my sisters in Germany about the social developments in Germany and about the welfare of her church community.  She said that the only houses of worship that were being build, constantly, were mosques – because mosques were needed so much, with them always being filled to capacity.  On the other hand, she said, Christian churches were being sold off for lack of attendance and revenues.  The same thing is happening in England, where some churches are now being used as rock-climbing venues.  The very same thing is happening all over Europe.  In France, for example, whole mid-sized cities are virtually empty of people, except for a few elderly who soon will be dead.  In Italy there is a town of about close to a thousand people where after about seven years the first child was born (how will that child learn to play with other children?).  Moreover, wolves now roam freely again in Italian rural areas and bears have made a comeback in parts of the Alps and the Caucasus.

Just as at the fall of the Roman Empire, the New Dark Age is coming – pretty much for the same reasons: excessive taxation, government waste and excessive government control, meddling with market forces, and corruption of government officials and by those who deal with them.  On top of that there is the invasion by the new Barbarians – as much needed as at the fall of the Roman Empire, because of a deadly and fatal birth dearth.
Let’s face it, neither Canada nor the US are ethnically or nationally united.  Both are empires, the US more so than Canada, but both are very much like the USSR before its recent collapse.  It could all be helped a bit if national consciousness and awareness were being promoted a little, especially in the schools, but those virtues are no longer part of the curriculum.  Instead, multiculturalism and the abolition of
international boundaries are being rammed down our throats.  Kofi Anan was right when he said in a speech in 1997 that the program for the abolition of international boundaries would have progressed so far by the year 2000 that it would no longer be possible to reverse it.
However, at the very bottom of all of the successes of those dark social forces is the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.  That removes the last bit of protection that individuals have against the capriciousness of the liberal forces controlling and driving our governments.  It makes virtually no difference whether the new liberals are Democrats or Republicans,
Liberals or Conservatives.  The real power is with the unrestrained, cancerously-growing, socialist bureaucracy.  Thereby it will be socialism that ultimately emerges victorious in pushing civilization into chaos.
Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to have to repeat it.
– Walter

(Walter Schneider is the owner of the popular site Fathers for Life, which is linked under “Friends of Laigle’s Forum” to the left of each article at Laigle’s Forum)


Hello Walter,

I also noticed this same sort of thing when we were in Atlanta killing time between flights to Latin America. We took a train on a Sunday to the downtown area at least 10 miles away. We could have counted the people we saw out the window on one hand. It appeared that whole neighborhoods were either deserted or no one dared to venture outside.

I remarked to Zoila that in any town this size in her country on a Sunday afternoon, there would be people walking around all over the place, with lots of kids playing.

I had this strange sensation of being at the end of an era or the beginning of another, but something horribly sinister and sad like the plot of a Utopian sci-fi novel.

I suspect it was very much the same kind of scenario you saw in Michigan, and we saw it in other cities too, such as buffalo, NY. My wife and I are determined to return to her home country to settle, where you can see kids everywhere and the streets are teeming with people all day everywhere.

The West is like a graveyard, and indeed, we have buried our culture some time ago, may she rest in peace.

You know, Don, I was often nostalgic, and perhaps sometimes even a bit homesick.  Every time that repeated itself over the years, it took less time to jolt myself back to reality and to realize that I was wishing to get back not so much to another place but to another time, a time with circumstances that do not exist anymore.
When we are younger we have more faith in and hope for what the future has to offer.  Still, the great hopes for the future that younger people once had (and the wish to have families with children was a big part of that) has been replaced by a real fear of the future by young people of today.  That is largely a consequence of a major change in the school curriculum, from the teaching of history (a sequence of actions and consequences) to the teaching of social studies (using disconnected vignettes to deprecate warts and blemishes of varied features of society: the patriarchy, environmental impact, alleged global warming, oppression by men, etc.), a change from teaching absolute moral standards and pro-family values to the teaching of moral relativism and the teaching of hostility to families.
I believe that all of us become a little bit wiser as we get older.  Wisdom is largely an expression of the sum of our experiences.  We can’t help but add to that as we get older.  However, the sum of our experiences is being edited constantly by what we remember, and memory is not a very reliable thing.  It is selective, increasingly biased — more or less — through constant and repeated filtering-out of some of the pains we went through as we lived life.  That is good. Wounds heal, turn to scars, and often even those vanish with time. Still, disappointments influence a good portion of the wisdom we accumulate.  Not only that, but our receptiveness to experiences is tainted by how we became indoctrinated through school and continue to be indoctrinated through the media.
There is one thing, though, that I find cannot be denied.  When I was young, there were not only far more children but those children had more respect for and appreciation of the elderly.  Today there is far less communication between the elderly and those that are two generations younger.  That, too, is largely a consequence of the systematic destruction of our families. It is a part of feminism’s legacy and part of the deliberate and successful efforts to depopulate the world.  But all of the blame cannot be assigned to feminism, liberalism, socialism, population control and other such harmful ideologies.  Some of it must be assigned to consumerism — most of that being driven by the constant and intense desire to improve the quality of life.
Today, far from being venerated by loving family members, many fathers that were expunged from their families die alone, without having much or any contact with their children and grandchildren. 

Fathers are an integral and vital part of views such as these:

A country stands or falls with its families.

– Rosalie Henke, my sister,
a wife and mother of four, grandmother of four

Any nation, the German too, that doesn’t have women and men who are willing to become parents and to raise their children cooperatively in permanent family relationships will dissolve into nothing.

Karin Jäckel, Ph.D.,
wife, mother and author of many books on family issues, 
in The Wife at his Side: ‘Mere’ Housewives in the Looking-glass of Feminism


The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities-such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations-grow.

– quoted by Dale O’Leary, in The Gender Agenda, p. 24,
original source: Allan Carlson, in
What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3

The nostalgia I mentioned is largely the yearning for families.  More and more people will experience that yearning as time goes by.  Still, that yearning will increasingly often go unanswered.  Without families we have nothing and are left empty.
You stated, in connection with the absence of people in the streets of Atlanta: “I had this strange sensation of being at the end of an era or the beginning of another, but something horribly sinister and sad like the plot of a Utopian sci-fi novel.”
Exactly!  I remember a noise that once was very common but now has not once been experienced by many: the noise made by masses of children playing in school yards during breaks.  Now, instead, breaks have been eliminated in many schools.  Many neighbourhoods have no schools — fewer children, fewer schools.
I remember the conversations (had by millions) of people walking and commuting in street cars to and from work.  Now the listening to conversations has been replaced by many through listening to ear buds of their I-pods.
I forgot who observed it, but it was someone in the US who stated another difference between then and now: Once it was that porches were features of every-day life and the stages for many conversations between neighbours.  Today, the sound of those conversations has been replaced by the all-pervasive humming of air conditioners and the absence of people.
Children in families were once a major unifying force in communities and neighbourhoods. Today we don’t know most of our nearest neighbours by name.  Now we fear having children.


Dear Reader, if you would like to share accounts of how you have personally seen the West decline since your youth, please feel free to post them at the Comments section under this article (if you don’t see the Comments box, click on the top title).

Zimbabwe chooses “change”

“Change” has come to Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe is now in the process of “spreading the wealth around.” 20th Century history is repeating itself. People have chosen a far-left government of “change” and this is the predictable result. Pray for these poor unfortunate people and forward to your list.

Notice how spreading the wealth is code for destroying wealth and impoverishing everyone: houses demolished in a desperately poor country where it is extremely hard for the poor to buy a house. The reason? Jealousy. The same reason Americans vote for the Left in America.


Letter from Zimbabwe sent in by John Winter

I reckon that these are the last days of TKM and ZPF. The darkest hour is always before dawn.

We are all terrified at what they are going to destroy next……..I mean they are actually ploughing down brick and mortar houses and one family with twin boys of 10 had no chance of salvaging anything when 100 riot police came in with AK47’s and bulldozers and demolished their beautiful house – 5 bedrooms and pine ceilings – because it was ‘too close to the airport’, so we are feeling extremely insecure right now.

You know – I am aware that this does not help you sleep at night, but if you do not know – how can you help? Even if you put us in your own mental ring of light and send your guardian angels to be with us – that is a help -but I feel so cut off from you all knowing I cannot tell you what’s going  on here simply because you will feel uncomfortable. There is no ways we can leave here so that is not an option.

I ask that you all pray for us in the way that you know how, and let me know that you are thinking of us and sending out positive vibes… that’s all. You can’t just be in denial and pretend/believe it’s not going on. 

To be frank with you, it’s genocide in the making and if you do not believe me, read the Genocide Report by Amnesty International which says we are – IN  level 7 – (level 8 is after it’s happened and everyone is in denial).

If you don’t want me to tell you these things – how bad it is – then it means you have not dealt with your own fear, but it does not help me to think you are turning your back on our situation. We need you, please, to get  the news OUT that we are all in a fearfully dangerous situation here. Too many people turn their backs and say – oh well, that’s what happens in Africa 

This Government has GONE MAD and you need to help us publicize our plight — or how can we be rescued? It’s a reality! The petrol queues are a reality, the pall of smoke all around our city is a reality, the thousands of homeless people sleeping outside in 0 Celsius with no food, water, shelter and bedding are a reality. Today a family approached me, brother of the gardener’s wife with two small children. Their home was trashed and they will have to sleep outside. We already support 8 adult people and a child on this property, and electricity is going up next month by 250% as is water.

How can I take on another family of 4 — and yet how can I turn them away to sleep out in the open?

I am not asking you for money or a ticket out of here – I am asking you to FACE the fact that we are in deep and terrible danger and want you please to pass on our news and pictures. So PLEASE don’t just press the delete button! Help best in the way that you know how.

Do face the reality of what is going on here and help us SEND OUT THE WORD.. The more people who know about it, the more chance we have of the United Nations coming to our aid. Please don’t ignore or deny what’s happening.
Some would like to be protected from the truth BUT then, if we are eliminated, how would you feel? ‘If only we knew how bad it really was we could have helped in some way’.

[I know we chose to stay here and that some feel we deserve what’s coming to us]

For now,– we ourselves have food, shelter, a little fuel and a bit of money for the next meal – but what is going to happen next? Will they start on our houses? All property is going to belong to the State now. I want to send out my Title Deeds to one of you because if they get a hold of those, I can’t fight for my rights.

Censorship! — We no longer have SW radio [which told us everything that was happening]

because the Government jammed it out of existence – we don’t have any reporters, and no one is allowed to photograph. If we had reporters here, they would have an absolute field day. Even the pro-Government Herald has written that people are shocked, stunned, bewildered and blown mindless by the wanton destruction of many folks homes, which are supposed to be ‘illegal’ but for which a huge percentage actually do have licenses.

Please! – do have some compassion and HELP by sending out the articles and personal reports so that something can/may be done.

‘I am one. I cannot do everything, —but I can do something.. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, 
I will do.’

 Edward Everett Hale

Please send this on to everyone in your address book.  We send jokes out without blinking an eyelid.  We don’t get told this on the news in South Africa, we only get told what they want us to hear.  We all have a chance to do something, even though the something is by pressing forward to as many people as possible.  Let’s stop talking and let’s start doing!  There is power in prayer, there is also power in more people knowing about this than you in my address book.  This is going to America, Dubai, Australia, France, South Africans all over South Africa, the UK.  By forwarding this to all in my address book I have done something.  The world needs to know what is going on.

This just in, separately, from Nigeria:

The socialist State: a hotbed of capitalism

The socialist State, a hotbed of capitalism

by Donald Hank

Gerald Celente has chalked up a formidable list of correct forecasts, having predicted all the major market downs for years. He is now predicting an unprecedented economic collapse within the first Obama term.

He is also predicting an imminent tax revolt.

Now perhaps we need to step back and look at the positive side of a down economy:

Nothing less than total collapse will stop people like Barney Frank, one of the chief culprits in the bank crisis, who accused the critics of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac’s Democrat policies of alarmism. But now that these GSEs have collapsed and gone into receivership, he and his cohorts, like Chris Dodd, still sound morally superior to those who favor the free market. Clearly, those who brought us the crash, as well as voters who bought the myth that conservative policies caused it, need an overdose of reality to back them up against the wall. Democrats and RINOs can lie all they want, but who will restore their portfolios? About $6 trillion has been lost so far.

Celente says the reality overdose is on the way, and here is why I believe him.

We now face a Soviet style state that is taking over ownership of business.

To see how this will end we need only look backward — at the Soviet Union.

Go to WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary for more

America in full suicide mode

America in full suicide mode

Before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked for almost $1 trillion to bail out rich bankers, and then got both parties to cow down to his demand, I would have thought the following article by John Wallace might be an exaggeration. But not any more. It is a missing piece in the puzzle.

It is your patriotic duty to read John Wallace’s article “The Council on Foreign Relations and Tack’s Tackle Shop,” but accompany it with Cliff Kincaid’s article “Wall Street and the rise of Obama.”

BTW, there is a rumor that Henry Paulson is not done with you yet. He may be wanting another $800 billion of your money. You don’t mind, do you? The first bailout was a bargain at only $17,000 per person (some estimates are higher). Bailouts! Get em while they’re hot!

Why do I now firmly believe in the world banker-CFR conspiracy that once seemed too outlandish even for a work of fiction?

Because, as Wallace’s article shows, these richies and world-governance fanatics have been working feverishly in both parties and having their way with them, openly and obviously, for many years for the purpose of destroying our country. A while back I wrote a column for Laigle’s Forum alerting that Mike Huckabee, the darling of the evangelical right, had chosen Richard Haass, President of the CFR, as his potential secretary of state. Haass had written an article saying that we need to “rethink sovereignty.” That fits the picture very nicely. The bankers and social engineers who control us need a central government to finish the job of killing your patriotism (England is only a few years ahead of us: people are getting arrested for flying the Union Jack in Muslim neighborhoods). It is very uncomfortable for them to have to deal with so many splintered governments. Sovereignty is just in the way and must be shipped off like an old parent to a nursing home. They have gotten their wish in Europe. The whole turkey is on the table there, ready to carve. But they need the NAU and the Amero. Clues abound: The secretive three way conference Bush attended a few years ago, the Mexican truck highway, open borders, amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens, and the elephant in the room: complete silence on immigration by the media and the presidential campaign (McCain was one of the amnesty deal makers last time around). And now, the bailout, the totally useless bailout that can’t budge the stock market. And finally, the absence of any new policy on banking, even though the old policy of putting social justice ahead of good banking practice was suicidal. Oh, and I almost forgot: America elected as its president one of the chief actors in enforcing the banking policy that destroyed the banks, throwing the blame on the free market that gave us the banks in the first place.

Did any of you notice that yesterday on CNN, when a desperate-looking Henry Paulsen was presenting his idea to bail out Citigroup on the pretext that credit was hard to obtain, one of the sponsors was a credit company offering low-interest credit to the viewers? At that very moment, my junk mail box was full of offers for cheap credit and low-interest credit cards, and my wife and I get a ton of junk mail every week offering us low-interest or zero-interest credit. My bank admitted they will give me all the credit I want because I pay back my loans. So what credit crisis?

Can anyone guess what the government is really talking about when they warn of a credit pinch? Why, it is really easy to figure that one out if you consider the socialist Zeitgeist: they mean that if you don’t bail out the banks, they will no longer be able to lend money to those poor unfortunate people who want to buy things they can’t afford and who, until just recently, couldn’t get credit because they were a bad credit risk, spent money like a drunken sailor, reneged on their debts and will continue to renege on their debts until the American tax payer turns blue and gasps his last. Irresponsible people need shiny Christmas presents too, and if they don’t get them this year, why, Christmas may just become extinct. Shysters in Washington, the media, and the “Christian” Left (which now means mainstream evangelicalism) have conned you into believing that banks must serve, first and foremost, a “social purpose,” and then do sound banking if there is any time left for it. But good banking practice and safety are off the table now, just as border safety and immigration enforcement have been off the table for years. We are staring down the barrel of a deadly Revolution in the form of a tectonic plate shift that has taken us far out into the ocean and most of us still think we are in America. Friends, look behind you and wave goodbye. That vanishing dot on the horizon was your country!

The banks now are hell-bent on lending to the irresponsible much in the way an evil perverted fool would offer booze to a recovering alcoholic. And the pubic bought into the notion of bailing out everyone but the tax payer. We hardworking, longsuffering, decent responsible people – the few who are left – are now forced at gunpoint to sacrifice our happiness, our safety and our future, and that of our children, for a bunch of lazy, spoiled-rotten free loaders with an entitlement mentality on steroids.

Friends, America is in suicide mode and no one is paying attention. I fear the worst.

PS: Articles like this never get done writing themselves. I just was alerted to the below-linked article where Lord Sterling says that the Rockefellers are benefitting from the bank crisis. If anyone has any information on this — whether it is true, how they benefitted, etc — I would appreciate your posting it in the comments section appearing under this article. Thanks!

Donald Hank



by John Wallace

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business. It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop. When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on. The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men. We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR. Continue reading

Is the owner of a liberal?

Is the owner of a liberal?

by Donald Hank has been accused of being run by a “flaming liberal.” But now a defender of Snopes,, has rushed to their aid, writing a story about how conservatives have attacked poor Snopes. They write, in part:

Is it true that “ is owned by a flaming liberal” and that “this man is in the tank for Obama”?

Well, first off, is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson. [Oh, well, that makes a world of difference. Two people in a team could not possibly be leftists, now could they?]

Second, the Mikkelsons’ political views are between them and the ballot box. I don’t know what they are; you don’t know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn’t know what they are. According to a boilerplate statement issued by the site, “Neither of the operators of has any affiliation with, has ever made a donation to, or has ever publicly expressed support for any political party or candidate.”  [The fact that the owners claim no affiliation and don’t donate money proves what?]

Anyone who has proof to the contrary should come out with it.

Ok, I will. Here is my proof:

First, there is something you should know about As clearly stated at the bottom left of their home page, they belong to the New York Times, a news outlet most Americans have said they don’t trust and that is demonstrably far left. Hardly inspiring of confidence. Frankly, the reader should be questioning a whole lot more than, although the fact that is defending snopes is to snopes’ discredit.

Beyond that, there are little clues that stand out everywhere in the article appearing on Snopes itself and quoted at One of the biggest clues is the versions of the emails whose veracity Snopes doubts. For example, if you look up the stuff about Obama’s nationality, you find that they print a version that accentuates the silliest claims in order to make the reasonable ones seem silly too. That is what we call a red herring. The Left is very adept at this tactic.

For example:

“…rumors swirling about that Barrack Obama was a Muslim with a middle name of Mohammed…”

Really? Did you ever hear that rumor?

I have gotten hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails on this topic and never heard that one. It is clear that Snopes used this grotesque exaggeration to mask the legitimate suspicion that Obama may not be a US citizen. If Snopes were sincere about disproving that claim, they would not have needed to present this other, much sillier, claim that is so rare most have never read it, and I suspect it may have just been floated by the Left to make conservatives look like rumor mongers.

Worse, the whole tenor of this argument ignores, and masks, the proven fact that Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school as a Muslim. In other words, it makes the claim that Obama was, at least in his youth, a Muslim seem questionable when in fact we know it to be true. (Not to mention the fact that in an interview with George Stephanopolis, Obama made the Freudian slip of saying “my Muslim faith.”)

The following quote from certainly does not comfort me:

“Second, the Mikkelsons’ political views are between them and the ballot box. I don’t know what they are; you don’t know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn’t know what they are.”

Not true. If Mikkelson were not politically aligned, he would not have endorsed only leftwing TV news channels as he did in an interview on CNN:

DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you’re generally going to see it in more than one place. If you’re finding something that seems rather sensational and it’s only on one Web site and it’s not something major like CNN or ABC, that’s a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.

Besides, if the NYT reporter who wrote this didn’t know the Mikkelsons’ political leanings, all he had to do was ask the Mikkelsons or do some quick research, as I did.

Obviously, the Mikkelsons are not conservative. A conservative would have at least mentioned Fox News or a conservative site in this context and would have been proud to tout his conservatism. Liberals hide their views because they know they aren’t popular.

Snopes’ reasons for believing in Obama’s credentials are not comforting either:

“Judge Surrick ruled Berg’s attempt to use certain laws to gain standing…were frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

For real conservatives, the last people they trust are judges. They know our rights are being stripped one by one and that it is chiefly the judges who are doing the stripping. To hear a judge state that a US citizen has no right to know if a candidate for president is a US citizen and hence in compliance with the Constitution, is just more evidence of a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, not evidence that the lawsuit against Obama was not valid.

The real fact of the matter is that the DNC and the electoral college should have delved into this matter a long time ago and it is clear that they did not.

And we shouldn’t care what the Mikkelsons – or their defenders at the very far-left pro-Obama New York Times – say about this.

Conclusion: be wary of Snopes. I don’t necessarily think they lie, but they present conservative emails in a very unfavorable light, so unfavorable that it is hard to call their presentation objective. You may wish to pass this article along to them — and more importantly, to your friends.

England already has “Change”

England already has “Change”

There has been evidence of anti-white and anti-conservative discrimination during the recent US elections. A black public school teacher harassed a young student for saying she was for McCain. A man was arrested in Philadelphia for wearing a McCain T-shirt at an Obama rally. And Laigle’s Forum has received emails alleging beatings and harassment of pro-McCain citizens.

The picture is troubling.

But if things are bad here, England has had an amplified version of this situation for many years and the extent of police interference with political life there is beyond the imagination for most Americans.

But just wait a few more years. We are getting there fast. Below is a press release we just received from Pete Molloy of the British National Party.

People will soon know what they voted for.

Donald Hank




Thirteen members of the British National Party were released on bail form various police stations in Liverpool at around 01:30 am this morning.  The 13 men were arrested by Merseyside Police in Liverpool city centre under Section 19 Public Order Act for allegedly handing out material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.  This arrest comes just 24 hours after a member of Merseyside Police was suspended from duties for allegedly being a member of the British National Party because his name appeared on the leaked Party’s membership list that went out on the internet last week.

Speaking today, Pete Molloy, 38, Liverpool, who is the British National Party’s candidate for the Belle Vale ward in the city and one of those arrested said, “The arrests made by Merseyside Police were politically motivated by our anti-democratic New Labour Government because they are running scared that ordinary British folk are turning towards the British National Party, which is opposite to what our Government is trying to make the general public believe with their lies.”

The brochure in question is the British National Party’s report entitled “Racism Cuts Both Ways – The Scandal of Our Age” where it confirms that the white indigenous British people also suffer from racism.  This is an issue that this New Labour Government is trying to sweep under the carpet.

Pete Molloy added “There is nothing at all racist in our brochure and all we were doing was letting the good people of Liverpool, irrespective of their racial origin, know that white people also suffer from racism.  If it is accepted for non-white people to produce literature highlighting they are victims of racism then surely it as to be accepted that white people can produce literature.  No-one should suffer from racial violence.

The Government have come to the wrong city and picked on the wrong people if they think we are going to just roll over and walk away.  Churchill sent the Royal Navy to the mouth of the Mersey estuary with their guns trained on the people of Liverpool, Thatcher tried to squash the people of Liverpool and failed.  This New Labour Government is no better and we will not be defeated.”

All 13 members were bailed to return to St. Anne’s police station on February 17th to see if charges will be brought.


Further information can be obtained from

Further reading:

“Tolerance,” markets, illegal aliens, Obama’s nationality, etc

“Tolerance,” the market, illegal aliens, Obama’s nationality,etc

The news is coming so thick and fast there is no time to comment comprehensively.

Read and draw your own conclusions:

Wall Street and the rise of Obama, by Cliff Kincaid


Attack on Christians in the city of “tolerance”

Think what might have happened in San Fran if the cops had not intervened.







Rick Warren criticized for upholding Prop 8

We had criticized Rick in the past for his wishy-washiness and for playing footsies with the Left. He has since shown some backbone, and this is what happens. No one can blame a church leader for fearing the reprisals against them when they stand up for what it right, and now we can only say: pray for Rick Warren and his church. May they stand strong and not weaken.

Homosexual activists grab woman’s cross and stomp on it

Church attacked by lesbians

The “gay” lobby knows how to make full use of the Gramscian “psychic iron cage.” But will Americans wear it willingly?

Domestic homo-terror: Letters with white powder


Is Obama an illegal alien?

Dallas School District issues fake social security nos. to give undocumented aliens a pass

Illegal alien felons released, not deported

Leftist web site pretends to seek source of bank crisis

Illegal alien criminal not deported “in interest of victim”

Undocumented criminals routinely released on US streets


The Catholic Connection

(Read the last chapter of David Kupelian’s book The Marketing of Evil)


French Left skeptical of Obama – good news perhaps?

The French left is skeptical of Obama because:

1 — He has indicated that he is for capital punishment in some cases,

2 – He is in favor of awarding a federal contract originally set to be awarded to EADS/Northrup (EADS is located in Europe), to Boeing. (They say he is favoring his home state of Illinois, where Boeing is headquartered – Chicago),

3 – They are incensed because he says he wants to pull out of Iraq but only to concentrate more on Afghanistan. (The French Left do not believe in taking the war to the terrorists). (The linked article is in French):,,4151096,00-obama-un-president-qui-risque-de-decevoir-les-francais-.html

The fruits of a feminist-dominated society (warning: VERY graphic, sad)                                                                   

Honduran immigrant rapes girl, “no  information” on immigration status



I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk’s office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition).  Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure.  It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.  

We do know the case has certainly been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference“, a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari.  Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner.  As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.  

My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter.  So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice.  The vast majority of stay applications are denied.  And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history. 

The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time.  So that leaves option “c)”: Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court.  That much is clear from looking at the docket.  

What isn’t clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):

Read more:

A dictator in the White House

A dictator in the White House

by Olavo de Carvalho

Jornal do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), November 20th, 2008

Since the President of the Republic is a government paid official, it is an inalienable right of any taxpayer to ascertain that the beneficiary of his taxes meets all preconditions to fill the job, which, however, do not end in the electoral victory, but also include constitutional requirements defined two centuries before the elections. As with any civil service entrance examination, the burden of proof lies entirely with the applicant: he is the one who must provide evidence of his qualifications, and it is not the State’s or the taxpayer’s obligation to prove he does not possess these qualifications.
            If some judges have lately been ruling the other way around, it is because the American citizens who are questioning Obama’s election in the courts mistakenly put forth as their main argument suspicions about the President elect’s nationality. Nevertheless, even if Obama were born in the Capitol on July 4th, his would be the obligation to demonstrate it with valid documents. The very refusal to abide by this rule would be enough to testify to the candidate’s disdain for the Constitution, thus automatically disqualifying him for the job of supreme defender of the Constitution itself and of United States laws. By putting the nationality issue and not the lack of documents in center stage, the plaintiffs are taking upon themselves the burden of proof, thereby weakening a claim that otherwise no judge could possibly dismiss. Continue reading

What Obama will do

What Obama will do


by Olavo de Carvalho


“What can we expect from an Obama government?” is the question of the hour. To answer it, academicians and journalists invariably use a method that is renowned for its inaccuracy: they examine the general tone of campaign speeches and apply it to the objective problems – economic, military, diplomatic – the new head of state will have to face. This method fails for two reasons:

First: the method starts out with the assumption that the institutional framework will remain unaltered and that therefore the new president will carry out, in his own way, substantively the same tasks as his predecessor. Consequently, it does not envisage that in a revolutionary strategy, one of the basic functions of the leader is precisely to redefine these very tasks. Obama learned this lesson since his youth from his guru Saul Alinsky: “All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new” [1].

Second: it always assumes that the head of state represents the national interest and will commit himself to safeguard it in all earnestness, according to the balance he manages to find between the demands of the militancy that elected him, the claims of happenstance allies and the pressures of the objective situation. This assumption, however, loses all significance at a time that defines itself overall as that of the emergence and implementation of world government. Nowadays, the national interest of all countries is being subordinated to worldwide plans imposed by an economic, bureaucratic and intellectual elite whose power transcends that of any particular nation, including the United States. Many presidents and prime-ministers are installed with the help or guidance of this elite, not to protect national interests, but to oppose them based on much broader goals, which, though described more than half a century ago by such first-rate authors as Arnold Toynbee [2] and Carroll Quigley [3], are scarcely taken into account by these academicians and journalists, and for a very simple reason: as David Rockefeller, one of the main leaders of globalism, publicly acknowledged, the fight for the implementation of world government would fail if prematurely disclosed. Therefore, discretion, deceptiveness and disinformation are some of the essential jobs of the mainstream media during the intermediate period [4]. The “anti-democratic means” that Toynbee found indispensable to the implementation of world government include, quite obviously, control of the flow of information sent to the general public. The increasing uniformity of the world press — of which the campaign against the alleged human agents of global warming, the universal anti-Bush outcry or the waves of enthusiasm surging over Lula, Obama and the World Social Forum are eloquent examples — can be easily explained by the rising concentration of media ownership precisely in the hands of the economic groups most interested in world government. The fact that part of the lesser agents in the process complain about this type of concentration, arguing that it is the spontaneous effect of pure mechanics of capitalism, is partly due to a residual ideological automatism, and partly to the cunning desire of these groups and individuals to conceal their own actions under the guise of supposed tendencies or anonymous historical laws, putting the blame for the most disagreeable changes on the previous situation which the current changes purport to suppress.

Since, on the other hand, the media also has the role of laying out “common sense” (in the sociological and Gramscian sense), giving the people a sense of purpose and reassurance as to what is happening, the cultured reader will be forced, sooner or later, to choose between buying into the mainstream opinion or trying to arrive at a more scientific and realistic understanding of the state of affairs. In the first case, he will be rewarded with that comforting sense of confidence that comes with deceiving oneself together with the majority of the people. In the second, he will attain reasonable certainty enabling him to make correct predictions, while seeming weird or irrational to most people. Because my choice was made long ago, the method I apply to answer the kind of questions posed at the outset of this article does not rest on the usual academic and journalistic conventions, but on elementary scientific precautions, which has allowed me to achieve a certain degree of success in anticipating the course of events, the price of which is, naturally, the hatred of those who have failed to do so.

One of these precautions is as follows: at times of swift change, imposed top-down by groups whose line of action remains elusive, it is almost impossible to predict the general course of action of a new government. All we can and must do is abandon general predictions and confine ourselves to those specific, scant but significant, points already determined by the course of the previous action, so that the new government must necessarily proceed with them. Instead of deriving from the general picture the particular actions that the head of state must hypothetically accomplish to deal with it, it is convenient to start with the existing or practically inevitable specific actions and, if possible, to ascend laboriously to the general picture. I say “if possible” precisely because in most cases we can only achieve reasonable certainty regarding the specific lines of action, whereas the general meaning of things remains as far beyond our intellectual reach as it is from that of the head of state himself. Even the most formidable powers are only capable of determining a small fraction of the results of their own actions. Hence any serious statement about the direction of a new government must limit itself to the actions it must bring to bear merely to keep and to expand the power with which it has been invested, especially those actions that fit immediate commitments that were previously agreed upon with the political and economic forces that produced them.

A second equally obvious rule goes along with the first: whatever its proclaimed goals, any scheme of power will always safeguard its own continuity and expansion first and foremost. To act, St. Thomas Aquinas would say, you must first be. The existence and continuity of the scheme are a prior condition of its doing whatever it may want to do. Thus, what we must consider before anything else is what the head of state will necessarily have to do, not to reach this or that goal, nor to face the objective problems that afflict the nation or part of it, but simply to keep – and, in the case of a revolutionary leader, to increase – the power of action it already possesses. Consequently, I don’t know what Obama will do in general terms. Nor does anyone else. But I do know what he’s already doing and will have to keep doing, not to achieve predetermined goals, but just to hold and increase control of the means.

May I mention, by the way, that it was based on the above-describe method that I announced, shortly after Lula’s first election, that he would not take any effective measures against drug dealing, for the very simple reason that he was lifted to power – and could be dethroned – by the international scheme of the Sao Paulo Forum, whose interests are fundamentally akin to the FARC’s, now and then the biggest supplier of cocaine to the Brazilian market [5]. A head of state can do many things, but, barring insanity, can never destroy the means of doing things.

All Obama’s career and his ascent to power were entirely subsidized by notoriously anti-American forces. To claim that they are only anti-Bush and not anti-US proves to be a mere rhetorical twist, unworthy of attention. The essential role the new president will play once in office does not differ much from that which Strobe Talbott recommended to Bill Clinton: “Sell multilateralism …as a means of preserving and enhancing American political leadership in the world” [6]. It purports, in short, to weaken and submit to supranational institutions the national power it pretends to enhance. In his campaign speeches, as well as in his aide’s declarations, Obama promised to reduce the US military budget by up to 25%, to slow down nuclear research and – as amazing as it seems – “to demilitarize space”. This would allegedly make the United States more amicable in the eyes of mankind and would afford it enormous diplomatic leadership in the world. Only giddy schoolgirls – who not coincidentally made up the most critical segment of Obama’s electorate – could believe in such stuff. The efficacy of diplomatic action is, by definition, proportionate to the military power that backs it.

In every political action – and this is the third methodological precaution I recommend – one must distinguish between the final announced goals and the substantiality of the acts performed to achieve them. The latter are a reality, the former a mere hypothesis, if not a smokescreen. Therefore, the meaning of the action reveals itself to a greater extent in the nature of the means employed than in the stated nominal goals. To militarily weaken a nation is … to weaken it militarily. The notion that this could strengthen it diplomatically is a far-flung hypothesis which is much too contrived and contrary to all historical experience. What is more, the supposed connection between the declared goals and the chosen means is based on an assumption that is uniformly that of mainstream anti-American discourse: the United States is hated because of its military force; if it agrees to become less powerful, it will be eternally loved by mankind.

It must be noted that, in this case, what the candidate emphasized in his campaign speech was not the materiality of the means, but the supposed beauty of the aims, under frantic applauses of a crowd of students to whom even the total destruction of the United States would not be an idea devoid of sex appeal. This idea has the exact same power of attraction to all those who have financed Obama’s career since his teen years: Arab millionaires, pro-terrorist agitators, globalist corporations and, last but not least, George Soros. If one thing is right it’s that the purpose of militarily weakening the United States, already tenaciously pursued by the Clinton Administration, will be followed to the letter by Barack Obama, for the simple reason that accomplishing it constitutes one of the main reasons of his existence as a politician. It’s something that he cannot afford not to do, just as, by analogy, Lula could not help sacrificing Brazil’s interests and sovereignty to the higher ends of the Sao Paulo Forum and the globalist scheme that backs it up, as we saw in the case of the Bolivian pressures against Petrobras, and even clearly in the Raposa Serra do Sol issue.

It is indeed curious – and depressing – to find that, at a time when national sovereignties are overtly opposed in the upper spheres of world politics, and their limitation or progressive suppression is even proclaimed as a basic condition for the survival of the human species, analysts claiming to be scientific still hold as an at least implicit premise of their predictions the assumption that leaders always behave according to the national interest, as if they were Renaissance princes committed to breaking down the empire’s integrity and to establish new sovereign unities.

Today a leader can stand against the most vital interests of his nation and be granted, for this very reason, so much support from international opinion that his own people, judging by the most visible appearance rather than the substantiality of the actions involved, end up viewing him as a kind of national hero.

Talbott’s formula was followed to the letter by Bill Clinton, who was consequently one of the world media’s most endorsed American presidents. He reduced the American atomic weapons arsenal knowing that China was enhancing hers; he encouraged American investments in China, while hampering American industry with taxes and restrictive legislation; he blocked probes into Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory and, in the last days of his government, when the chief Chinese spy involved in the operation was already in prison, pardoned him without any sound justification. Needless to say he was acting all the time against American national interest and conforming to the strictest “multilateralism” by stimulating the transformation of China into a military and economic power, one that intends to become the dominant center in the coming decades. Needless to say as well that the applause thus received from the international media created a huge impression in raising American prestige, making decline seem like an improvement in the eyes of the American people. He was even more enthusiastically cheered for his “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo, which, under the pretext of punishing a genocide we now know did not exist at all, had the only effective result of turning a Christian region into an Islamic stronghold, and at the further price of the actual genocide perpetrated by Muslim troops trained and subsidized by Bin Laden himself [7].  Once again, the sympathy of the international media was sold to the American people as proof of the great success of the anti-American actions ordered by the president.

When Obama promises to enhance the international “image” of the United States, in exchange for the decrease of its military power, he’s again applying Talbott’s formula: to substitute an image for reality and then to sell that image as reality itself. That he’s going to do this is something that cannot be seriously questioned, because this proposal is the fundamental or even sole explanation for the worldwide support he received, a support that only a perfect idiot would see as stemming from the spontaneous preferences of the people and not from a coordinated effort of the globalist elite who dominates the media organizations all over the planet. If he steps back from this commitment, his political career won’t last one more day.

But Obama wasn’t elected just to repeat what Clinton has already done. In addition to shrinking American power in the international arena, he’ll push for an enormous increase in the American State’s power to control the lives of its citizens and to shape public opinion.

I’m not saying that he “can” do this or either that he “tends” to do this. I’m saying that he will necessarily do this, if he’s not stopped, because it is essential to boost the power of the forces who elected him and also to block, as of now, a potential return of Republicans to both houses of Congress by 2010. To hold and enhance its power is the most basic condition of the very existence of political forces, and these conditions become ever more vital and urgent when a political force has the aim of bringing about profound changes in society. Whatever the substance of these changes, the first one is – and must be – the consolidation of the power of action necessary to enforce them. It was for disregarding this fact that George W. Bush completely failed. Instead of consolidating Republican hegemony by debilitating his opponent, he chose to improvise a suicidal alliance with the latter, forging a semblance of national unity against the external enemy. This unity, when it crashed and smashed into pieces at a speed greater than anticipated (except as seen by the geniuses at the Department of State), carried away the prestige of the presidency and the Republican control over both Houses of Congress [8]. The Democrats do not ordinarily make this mistake. Even now before Obama is sworn in, they’re preparing the revival of the restrictive legislation, ironically termed Fairness Doctrine, whose sole object is to destroy the already poor balance of the American media, by transferring to the Democrats half of the time that republicans hold on the radio, without granting to the latter even the smallest amount of the Democrats’ hegemony in newspapers and TV stations.

Some Republican commentators, and by no means the worst of them, have been wrongly reasoning, in accordance with the second of the above premises, that the rules of the game will remain the same, and thus even believe that Obama’s victory was good for their party, because it will throw onto the new president the responsibility of handling the economic crisis and, since he will most likely fail, it will pave the way for the triumphant comeback of the Republicans in the 2010 legislative elections. This is one of the methodological mistakes I referred to above. In 2010, the rules of the game will be so radically altered that Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, will hardly be capable of making themselves heard by the public. The “change” promised by Obama could begin even before his oath of office: inspired by the victory at the presidential election, democratic senators and representatives can’t wait to rubber stamp the return of the catastrophic and anti-democratic Fairness Doctrine [9].

To this fundamental change, which will give the leftist establishment almost total control of the mass media, Obama intends to add a more complicated one, whose implementation represents an explicit commitment he made with the enragée faction of his militancy, whose support he’ll continue to seek unless he wishes to draw against him the most bold and outspoken part of the American nation, and he won’t fail to do it, short of being insane. I’m referring to the “Civilian National Security Force” [10]. Obama has been working on this idea for many years, in the framework of the “Public Allies” non-profit. The goal is, plainly, to arm the radical militancy and transform it, according to the words of the new president himself, into such a powerful and well subsidized force as the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The resources that will be allocated to this mission have already been calculated by obamist planners and amount to $500 billion annually. Every enlisted volunteer will be paid $1,800 per month, and will be granted scholarships and places at the best universities as well as many other social advantages that, together with the weapons and the military training, will quickly turn those fanatical mobs into a privileged class with a fearful power.

Whom will that power turn against? Is the “civilian force” meant to replace the military in repressing and controlling terrorism? Impossible. The Bush Administration already reduced to zero the number of terrorist attacks in US territory. And it doesn’t make sense to go below zero.

Is the new force meant to combat criminality, to restore public safety and thus promote social peace, the so-long awaited “reconciliation” among the races? Equally impossible. If, on the one hand, eighty percent of the Public Allies militants already comprise black young people, the same proportion will likely prevail in the “civil force,” for where else, if not among his own militancy, would the obamism recruit the volunteers for this task? It’s true, on the other hand, that of all interracial crimes perpetrated in the United States, 85% – almost the same proportion of the Public Allies members – are committed by blacks against whites [11], notwithstanding the politically correct detail that official statistics refuse to treat Hispanics as a separate group and include them among “whites,” thus attributing to white people those crimes committed by illegal Hispanic immigrants against blacks. An immense work of repression of interracial crimes would throw even more blacks into prisons they already overcrowd. This would be dreadful political suicide, which would send Obama against the community whose skin color is one of the strongest reasons for his occupying the presidential seat. (By the way, it is worthy remembering that the usual “racism” explanation for the bigger proportion of black inmates is a complete fraud, for the states where jailed blacks proportionally outnumber jailed whites aren’t in the South, but rather in the North, and they’re not governed by Republicans but, rather by Democrats [12]).

It is equally impossible that the new security force would be meant to control illegal immigration. Obama is already formally committed to the total amnesty project and soon the very concept of “illegal immigrant” will be abolished. Leaving out those three ends, what task remains for a portentous force the same size of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, apart from policing and intimidating religious and political groups the Left views as “suspect”? This goal has already represented the democratic agenda since Madeline Albright, who saw a great threat to national security in the groups made up of religious, conservative and — like half of the American population — armed people. Except that, to repress these groups, the Clinton Administration relied solely on the FBI and the state police forces, where many agents and chief officers would naturally abhor a drastic and comprehensive action against innocent people. The young obamist militancy comes pre-inoculated against that kind of ethical misgivings thanks to massive propaganda.

To weaken the American State abroad and to strengthen it internally are the two pillars of Obama’s politics. He cannot relinquish either of them, not only because they complement themselves, but because they are the chief justifications of his existence as a politician. His entire career has been supported and subsidized by forces that strongly desire both things. When I single them out as fundamental goals to which the Obama government will attach its best talents, I’m just drawing attention to two already ongoing lines of action, that are strongly rooted in the Democrats’ agenda once they come to power, and that have been previously coordinated through the broadest effort of militancy formation ever seen in the United States (for his internet campaigns alone Obama has in place a network of nothing less than four million people, formally committed to continue doing for his government what they did for the candidate). Whatever the general outlook the Obama government may eventually show to the world, these two lines of action will be there and will deeply affect the whole ensemble. That numerous Republicans, Democrats or independent analysts foresee a “moderate” or “centrist” government, is due to the fact that they do not have the analytical tools to understand the situation. “Radical” and “moderate”, are usually terms that better fit the description of rhetorical styles than substantive actions. The leftist “radical” Hugo Chavez was unable to dismantle Venezuelan opposition, while the “moderate” Lula disassembled one by one every pocket of right-wing resistance in Brazil, to the point that nowadays only leftwing opposition remains. Obama could well keep a “moderate” profile at those more visible areas, and, at the same time, discretely undertake these two measures that, per se, can not only irreversibly modify the American political system but also “change the world” as we know it.

It is obvious that Obama can be prevented from carrying out these plans, either by uncontrollable factors, or by the organized action of his opponents. What is certain is that the effort to accomplish them, whether in a spectacular or in a more subtle way, will be one of the unchanging features of his government, and any success he achieves, no matter how incomplete or minimum, will leave a scar on the historical face of the United States and on humankind.


[1] Brad O’Leary, “For Obama, All Roads Lead to ACORN and Saul Alinsky”, at

[2] In America and the World Revolution, cit. in Olavo de Carvalho, “Travessia perigosa”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, May 12th, 2008 (; English translation at

[3] V. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time, New York, Macmillan, 1966.

[4] V. Will Banyan, “The proud internationalist”, em

[5] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Lula e Lulas”, in O Globo, November 2nd, 2002 (; v. also and

[6] Cit. in John Fonte, Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?”, Bradley Symposium 2008, Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. (

[7] V. Joseph Farah, “Bill Clinton’s other genocide”, WorldNetDaily, July 26th. 2005,

[8] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Avaliando George W. Bush”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, June 18th, 2008,; English translation at

[9] Obama personally denies that he intends to apply the Fairness Doctrine, but he knows he won’t need to get his pretty hands dirty, because Congress will do that for him. Besides, his team has a reputable history of intents to silence opponents (v. Finally, at the obamist circles the name being more considered to head his transition team is that of Henry Rivera, who, during his presidency of the Federal Committee on Communications, was a forceful adept of the Fairness Doctrine (v.

[10] V.

[11] V.

[12] V. Steve Sailer, “Mapping the unmentionable: Race and crime”, in



Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian philosopher and writer currently living in the U.S. as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers after having taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. The author of a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, he is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.