Shifting the blame from Left to greed

Blaming greed for failed leftist policies

Donald Hank

The Pope has said, over the Christmas holiday, that the world must overcome greed to get through the current economic crisis.

With all due respect for the Pope, whose stance on social issues are to be applauded, both Protestantism and Catholicism, while blaming greed, have failed to grasp the nature of the Left and its role in crises such as the financial and economic crises gripping the world.

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter) and the way it was enforced, including the role of ACORN, played a major role in bringing down the banks. Generally, the trend to lend money, particularly mortgages, to people with no down payment and even without proof of employment, goes against all common sense and good banking practice, which has been in place since the beginning of time and throughout the world, and has proved disastrous. And yet so many are in denial, even to the utterly absurd point of casting all the blame on conservative policies and seeing the Democrats as being more economically astute and hence capable of pulling us out of the current crisis of their own making — sort of like Clinton “reforming” the failed welfare created by his party. Anyone paying attention in the years since 1995, when Clinton ordered the banks to lend a trillion dollars to “underserved communities,” would have been able to foresee this collapse. Some actually did, including a New York Times writer in 1999.

I suppose it could be argued that the Left, in its own way, represents greed, but it is probably more appropriate to call it ideologically motivated rather than greedy. Ideological motivation, rather than common sense, has caused the greatest destruction known to man — under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

None of these men’s political actions were greed-motivated in the accepted sense of the word. In their decisions that led to the murder and starvation of millions, they were, however, blinded by leftist utopian (revolutionary) ideology — a desire for a better world, for change, and ironically, for a world with less greed.

Ideology killed 100 million innocent people in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois). No other factor, including greed, has ever done anywhere near that much harm.

The most confused man on the planet

Bailout based on phony “crisis”

Commentary by Donald Hank

I had reported before the first bailout vote that I had called my own bank and asked if I could still get a home-equity loan in the amount of about $50,000.

The loan officer, with just a glance at my records, was able to ok that.

I asked him why they were able to do this at a time when everyone was talking about a credit crunch. He said it was because this bank (PNC) had always been careful whom it gave loans to.

Now an independent analysis shows the whole “crisis” may have been manufactured — or at least blown way out of proportion — by government. Whatever the case may be, it resulted in the election of Barack Obama, whom a majority of voters said they “trusted” to restore the economy — even though it was clear his own party had contributed mightily to the weakening of banks.

Now, the international research and consulting firm Celent, has presented an analysis suggesting the whole “crisis” is bogus.  Independent analyst Cliff Kincaid reports:

“Using charts and graphs of data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, the Celent study says that statements from Paulson and Bernanke about a “credit crisis” affecting businesses, real estate, banks, and state and local governments were just not true.”

 

Madoff gave huge support to the Left

What a surprise.

While the Left constantly accuses conservative capitalists of being greedy, the world’s biggest rip-off artist of all time (aside from the Social Security Administration) has given almost a third of a million to far-left political candidates and the abortion industry, displaying a clear-cut sympathy for the Left and their vision for America.

America has seen a veritable parade of leftists (both RINOs and Democrats) committing crimes (Blagojevich is only the latest example) but so far shows not a glimmer of understanding that Leftism goes hand in hand with deviant, anti-social behavior, blithely voting for the Left and even believing – on Lord knows what basis – that the Left has the answer to our economic woes.

Read about it here.

 

GW Bush’s “Christian” globalism-socialism gobbledygook

George W. Bush could well be the most confused man on the planet. He calls himself a conservative but never saw a socialist give-away program he didn’t like. Unlike other conservatives, he seems to see the Constitution as more of an obstacle than a boon to his vision for America. He clearly opposes sovereignty for the US and has taken us to the brink of an EU type supranational government, greatly facilitating Obama’s job.

Speaking of the bailouts, President Bush has said that he must go against his free-market principles to save the free market. Even after the banking crisis broke, his HUD web site called for a “Zero Down Payment Initiative” that would have forced banks to require no down payment for loans.

It is becoming abundantly clear that, at the rate government is jettisoning principles, we will soon have no free market left. The government now owns a significant share of banking interests and is greedily eyeing our auto industry. You the taxpayer are a silent – or rather muzzled – shareholder.

Many can’t decide if Bush is a socialist or if he is really naïve. But if he is really that naïve, then he possibly belongs in the Guinness Book of World Records!

Personally, having heard Bush speak, I believe he has a grossly distorted idea of Christianity and thinks that the US government must be kind to the enemies of our people (all but the man who threatened his father), treating them as we would ourselves but treating ourselves like slaves and letting our enemies abuse us. Mainstream “Christianity,” which is little more than a tool of the Left, teaches that nationalism is an evil. This teaching fits nicely with Bush’s notions of globalism (which he inherited from his father), melded with his naïve and distorted “Christian” socialism (a misinterpretation of Biblical precepts concerning the poor), his open-border, pro-amnesty policies and his receptiveness to supranational government. His fairly plain Christian views on abortion and family make him palatable to the Christian “right,” which has no understanding of the Left and their intentions. This group, which talks suspiciously like the “Christian” Left, has shown a dangerous willingness to coexist with socialism and global governance that is, as we speak, resulting in their own irrelevance in world politics.

If my theory is correct, Bush has zero understanding of the Left, which laughs at people like him.

But his policies are no laughing matter.

Open season on Christians

When is hate not hate?

Commentary by Donald Hank

Why, when the victims are not victims.

Make sense? It does to the Left in America, where, according to an analysis by Public Advocate, a church that is torched by homosexual activists is, in today’s terms, not a victim of anything because only “gays” can be the victims, so when they commit crimes, well, that is just – irrelevant, because it is apparently fine and dandy to hate Christians in the United States of America today.

In the case of the Wasilla church, arsonists attacked when they knew there were women and children inside. They didn’t care if people were killed. The only thing that mattered to them was their own lusts and a lifestyle known to be lethal.

There is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Here is what the Washington Times said in its report on the crime:

The 1,000-member evangelical church was the subject of intense scrutiny after Palin was named John McCain’s running mate. Early in Palin’s campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Focus on the Family “Love Won Out Conference” in Anchorage. The conference promised to “help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.”

According to the Illinois Family Institute, gay activists have been threatening to use arson to get their way. Their web site provides damning quotes and links to pro-“gay” forums where activists actually call for homosexuals dissatisfied with the results for Prop 8 (denying the redefinition of marriage) to torch buildings associated with persons known to oppose same-sex “marriage.”

 After the cited calls to violence appeared on pro-“gay” sites, lo and behold, Sara Palin’s church, known for its defense of traditional marriage, was torched and almost totally destroyed. Some people were inside, including several children, when the arsonists did their dirty deed. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the arsonists actually intended to murder these innocent people.

Now you know when hate is not hate.

But do you know when enough is enough?

Scots Government set to weaken age of consent

Here it comes! The UK has already seen the legalization of “gay” marriage. Now comes the next stage — legalized pederasty. And if you look at the names of the Scotts who are behind this, I bet to dollars to donuts they are some of the same ones who supported same-sex marriage.

This goes hand in hand with the article about the Nassau PTA official who was caught with her panties down with a 13 year old boy in her car.

The “gay” agenda will pave the way for legalized pederasty. That is why we need to ask, in our debate with “gay” activists, what is the difference between what they espouse and pederasty.

I asked a member of the Center on the First Amendment (don’t recall name exactly) that in an email exchange, and he could not answer. When I tried to pin him down, he stopped writing.

From our friends in the UK:

Scots Government set to weaken age of consent
The Scottish Government is moving head with plans to water down Scotland's age of consent law.
The plans are contained in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament. Britain's age of consent laws, which prohibit sexual activity under 16, are largely the result of the campaigns of 19th Century Christian, Josephine Butler. She cared for damaged prostitutes and recognised that a robust age of consent law was needed to protect young girls from sexual exploitation.
Last month The Christian Institute presented evidence before the Justice Committee at the Scottish Parliament.
Please pray for The Christian Institute has we campaign against plans to weaken this important protection.
For more information about the Scottish Government's plans see:
http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/aocscot/
Please forward this email to your friends.
Yours in Christ,
Colin Hart, Director, The Christian Institute
Registered office: The Christian Institute, Wilberforce House, 4 Park Road, Gosforth Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12 8DG
The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity.
Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774 / A charity registered in Scotland Charity No. SC039220       

Just say no to civility

Just say no to civility

Commentary by Donald Hank

Note that almost everything you find on Laigle’s Forum is a counter-attack against  the Left, which seeks to destroy all that is good and decent on this planet, including traditional family, truth and knowledge, the free market (our life blood), population and economic growth and freedom of expression. They have dressed up their monstrous, failure-bound platform to make it palatable to the chronically inattentive and are succeeding, not because they are intelligent, but because so few can see a pattern in their behavior.

Now, mainstream Christianity today believes that any person or group devoted to opposing something is not being “civil.” Note, for example, that Rick Warren justified his participation in Obama’s inauguration on the basis of this notion of civility.

But Jesus was never civil. He was an in-your-face provocateur. Even the early Christians never teamed up with the worldly leaders of their day (be not unequally yoked), and were not civil toward sin. Paul bluntly condemned many specific sins, including those indulged in by the rich and powerful.

William Buckley defined conservatives best when he said it was their duty to “stand athwart history yelling stop!”

That is wiser than most suspect. By definition, conservatism may not stand for any one particular goal, because goals presuppose a movement, and conservatism may not be a movement. Rather it must be an anchor. Except in cases where the status quo is ungodly, it must be an essentially non-moving entity, or a non-movement. But to be effective it must stop other movements that oppose it.

Because of its nature, it has been reluctant to do so. It just wants to exist.

But ironically, if it keeps just wanting to exist, it will very soon cease to exist, because the forces of change are upon us and won’t go away without a fight.

But the end thereof are the ways of the Left…

The Left wants you to believe they are for the oppressed and the downtrodden. Yet their ideological brothers killed 100 million innocents in the last century (see the book “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois), most of the victims representing the oppressed and downtrodden classes.

It seems the “beloved leader” of North Korea has a policy of jailing, torturing and then killing not only those he perceives as his enemies but also their children and grandchildren.

Kim Jong Il, the most far-left of all modern leaders, has produced a gulag whose cruelty goes far beyond Hitler, Mao and Stalin, and in fact, beyond anything the human imagination can conceive of.

The evidence that, at bottom, the Left is nothing less than a collective of evil people of murderous intent is abundantly clear when you look at any example of a nation in which the Left has had complete control, unopposed. Ironically, it was a group of French communists who tallied up the body count of communism, showing it to be around 100 million in the 20th Century alone, eclipsing all the killing by all wars and other evils perpetrated by any other group.

Yet, incredibly, the Left goes on unabated and almost without resistance, spreading the absolute malarkey that religion is dangerous, while atheism – the essence of the Left – represents enlightenment.

They point to the Crusades and the 30 Years War as if these were the distillate of what Christianity has produced since the beginning, and when confronted by the inconvenient facts of the slaughter of innocents in leftist regimes, they shrug them off, attributing this cruelty to an aberration, to accidents of human personality.[1]

So what do you say when someone tells you that Christianity is no better than leftism because both Christians and leftists have killed people?

It is true that people calling themselves Christians have done wrong, as have leftists.

But the harm attributed to Christians was done in disobedience to God’s commandments.

The harm attributed to the Left was done in perfect obedience to a humanist system in which there is no absolute commandment, nor is there a concept of absolute right or wrong. In fact, leftism is a system based on “change” or in other words, revolution. By definition, such a system cannot be stable or lead to the stable utopia targeted by its proponents.

Thus, in both systems we have humans imperfectly executing commands. But in one, the humans in charge are, all too often, disobeying God. In the other, they are almost invariably obeying the wishes of imperfect humans, including themselves.

Thus when the humanist system fails, it does so because it was not only executed by humans who believe they are the center of the universe but is designed to be executed on the premise that man is the center of the universe. Thus it is designed for failure.

When a godly system fails, it does so due to disobedience – that is, man behaving in a man-centered manner. It is designed to succeed but fails when its executor behaves like a leftist! Thus Leftism fails when executed both by Leftists and by others (G.W. Bush, for example).

So the question that demands an answer is:

Why choose a man-centered (leftist) system that is not only designed by humans but also executed by humans when you can choose a system that is designed by God and, if executed according to design, will ineluctably succeed?

The Left is the quintessential “patient in charge of the asylum,” but the “right” is so splintered and disarrayed, and currently, so steeped in a hopelessly naïve, smarmy, sentimental version of “Christianity” that they perfectly embody the “ripe plum” that Premier Krushchev predicted would soon fall into the lap of the communists.

 


[1] The Left also muddy the waters by portraying Hitler as a right-winger. In fact, Hitler’s system was based on a utopian vision, a hallmark of the Left.  Hitler denied divinity, jailing and even executing many religious leaders. Note also that the European Right shared a vision of monarchic divine right that was quite alien to Hitler’s utopia.

Call for Constitutional Convention poses threat to US law!

U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention

Link to Joint Resolution in Ohio Legislature:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

 This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote as early as Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio’s vote today poses a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST – time is of the essence!

I apologize! This malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radar until a good friend brought it to our attention yesterday. The hour is late, but WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!

It does not matter where you live. Ohio’s vote today endangers everyone in every state in the Union, so we must pressure Ohio lawmakers to discard this disastrous legislative effort.

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution. We dare slumber no longer; we must take immediate action to preserve this nation!

Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget. But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights. So what may look like a good idea to the legislators driving this effort – all Republicans – will certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences – at the very least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget – while destroying what vestiges of liberty the government still allows.

 

Read more here.

America lacks standing

America lacks standing

 

By Donald Hank

 

Well, the Donofrio case against Obama (one of the many court cases the media refused to tell you about for months), demanding the showing of a real birth certificate, has failed, and I am getting near-frantic emails from conservatives who had entertained hopes that Donofrio, and hence, justice for all, would prevail.

Here is what I am telling them:

The constitutional damage was first done in 1913 with the institution of the Federal Reserve and income tax, and was almost total by 1973 with Roe v Wade, when some justices unlawfully decided that the Constitution affords a right to kill, and there was no general outcry.

They stopped defending the unborn, but I wasn’t an unborn so I said nothing…

The Constitution was further undermined by G.W. Bush when he decided that, as chief law enforcer, he could pick and choose which of his constitutional duties to fulfill and chose not to comply with his duty to defend our borders. He suggested this was his duty as a Christian, saying on national TV, first, “they are good people looking for a better way of life”…and ending with “it [letting undocumented stay illegally] is good for our soul.”

Bush thereby not only overstepped his constitutional bounds but also donned the clerical hat, as though America had anointed him as their Pope, not their president. And here is where “conservatives” got egg on their faces. Many gave him a pass, believing in their hearts that Bush was sent by God as their “ruler” rather than lending him power with the reservation that he uphold the Constitution, as must be done in a Republic. Thus it wasn’t Bush who failed. It was American Christians.

They stopped defending the victims of violent crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens, but I wasn’t a victim of crimes committed by illegal aliens, so I said nothing…

McCain did likewise, supporting an illegal bill to give amnesty to lawbreakers. He too played pope, condescendingly calling illegal Mexicans “God’s little children.” Obama and his party did much the same simply by ignoring the issue.

Then the president and both candidates strongly supported an unconstitutional role of government in our economy, giving failed banks a trillion dollars in an unprecedented move to blend government and business, plunging the US into full-fledged fascism. A few conservatives bravely pointed to the role played by the Community Reinvestment Act, but then fell silent. (I received a lengthy commentary on the causes of the bank crisis, written by a “conservative” think tank. It failed to even mention the role of the CRA, a Democrat law that forced banks to lend $1 trillion to “underserved communities” notorious for bad credit, high unemployment and welfare entitlements.)

No one in the highest positions is now following the Constitution, let alone showing common sense, so how can anyone contest what Obama is doing?

We didn’t protest Wade v Roe, not enough of us protested amnesty and open borders, we allowed these to become non-issues during the campaign – for fear of the big, bad ‘bama – and now that the bailout is a fait accompli, few are protesting it any longer. And we wonder why the courts aren’t listening when someone protests that an illegal alien is president.

Then they abandoned me and there was no one left with the moral standing to defend my Constitutional right to a legitimate American born president.

It was the choice of Americans to ignore the Constitution, and the powerful undercurrent to scrap the Constitution and to substitute it with the public whim du jour may well have too much momentum to stop at this point.

So now, tell me the truth: were you really surprised that Donofrio failed?

And yet, God is still on His throne. Watch closely for His hand now.

 

 

Fascism, it’s all the rage in America

 

Donald Hank

 

A few years back I started noticing free AOL CDs on display at the local post offices. I was annoyed that AOL could get free advertising. I am a businessman too, so why wasn’t the US government advertising my business? Or yours for that matter.

So I asked an official at the window how it is that the US government can choose one business over all the others to promote? Was that legal? It certainly was not fair.

No one knew the answer to that, but I kept protesting it every time I went to the post office. The officials I spoke with were sympathetic but all said I was the only one protesting. Everyone else seemed to think this was fine.

To be fair, the advertisement was ostensibly focused on the post office’s new web page, and that was the pretext for the free plug for AOL. But it wasn’t kosher because no other internet company was mentioned. Eventually they stopped.

Of course, even further back than that we saw Chrysler getting bailed out at taxpayers’ expense. And now we see major banks getting bailed out as a reward for dismal performance and the auto workers lined up for their reward for the same kind of performance and for overpaying their workers, and it is clearly just the beginning of a burgeoning trend.

How long will it last?

I think the answer is: until such time as it fails, and like all other unconstitutional policies, it will inevitably fail due to natural causes.

 

RWTNs may save America

 

Donald Hank

 

It was a communist, Deng Xiaoping, who fixed a nation destroyed by Chairman Mao. He did it using a novel system: capitalism. The fact is, all leftist mistakes are eventually fixed by leftists using conservative methods that had been previously denounced.

Another example, it was a group of French communists (Stephane Courtois et al.) who bravely wrote “The Black Book of Communism” exposing that fact that about 100 million innocents had lost their lives on the altar of the Left in the 20th Century.

Thus, to save the day, Left inevitably drifts rightward. It will always be so as long as God is in His heaven and His natural laws are “on the books.”

By now you have probably heard of Michelle Rhee, the no-nonsense Chancellor of Washington DC’s school system, who is being entrusted with fixing what the Dems broke. She is a Dem too but is using a Republican method: discipline, for both teachers and students. Her draconian measures will include weakening the tenure system while strengthening performance pay for teachers and closing several failing schools, all to the vain protests of the teachers’ unions. Nature has won out, by proving the failure of Leftist control over education (Washington’s schools have been among the worst in the world).

The Left can hate conservatives as much as they want, but their would-be utopian world will inevitably continue to fall apart, and when they can’t stand it any more they will become RWTNs, Republicans Without The Name, the mirror image of RINOs.

As Anne Coulter famously said in a book by that title, if liberals were smart they’d be Republicans. I would modify that and say “if Republicans were smart they’d be Republicans,” but it’s a little late for that.

But to return to my story, let’s take a look at what the Dems have had to do over just the last 2 decades or so:

– Clinton was given the – for him – distasteful job of “fixing” welfare. The Republican congress forced his hand, but he would eventually have had to reform the system anyway out of sheer embarrassment. He did a passable job, short of eliminating the dreadful system altogether.

– Democrats (as well as Republicans) in Louisiana rejected Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat who stole too much, this election.

– And note that it was a Democrat, Phillip Berg, who first sued Barack Obama and the DNC for failing to present proper credentials for their candidate.

– The Department of Public Health of the fanatically pro-homosexual government of Massachusetts recently came out with a report showing that homosexuality is unhealthy and leads to destructive behavior. (Conservatives had been saying that forever but were shouted down).

All of this is evidence of what I had tried to show in my WND article “The socialist State: a hotbed of capitalism,” namely, that behind the scenes of every leftist policy is a hidden conservative system that props up failed socialism.

So what is the secret to all of these successes of the RWTN’s? And what was the role of conservatives?

In each of these cases, conservatives had long done the research needed to lead to these positive results.

Yet, nothing happened until “liberals” were allowed to believe that they had come across the information, and the resulting solutions, on their own.

In other words, we must use the same system used successfully with all children.

Tip: To avoid out-of-control, violent tantrums, do not, under any circumstances, remind liberals that it was our idea first.

Governor Ed Rendell to PA businesses: get out!

PA has new creative ways to get rid of businesses, people

First off, let me say the area around Lancaster and York Counties in Pennsylvania is beautiful, crime is low, and you can still safely turn your back on most folks. I love the area. It is in the Bible belt. We may have invented the Bible belt. The people are conservative and honest, hard-working, and the number one cause of death is OD’ing on scrapple and shoe-fly pie. People die content and a near-record number go to heaven.

But is Pennsylvania business-friendly?

Well, imagine receiving this notice from the Department of revenues of your state about a new tax few outside of government have ever heard of:

“PA Department of Revenues records indicate your company has not reported or remitted Use Tax in the previous three years. Your company incurs a Use Tax liability when purchases are not taxed by the selling vendor…”

Sounds like you’ve been a negligent business person, right? So then why didn’t my tax accountant know, who is himself a government auditor?

Answer: no one knew. And they weren’t supposed to. It’s that old taxation without notification. The Department admits in that same notification:

“Many businesses are first made aware of Use Tax when a Department auditor reviews their financial records, and a tax assessment including penalty and interest results.”

Translation: Governor Ed Rendell’s Department of Revenue admits it failed to properly announce this Use Tax in time and most are surprised by it. So how can a government levy a tax and then, the first year it is enforced, demand payment of “back taxes”?

Technically, the DOR had said, back in 2006, at their web site, which no one was, or is, obliged to visit:

 “The DOR has now moved on to the enforcement phase of the program, while the education and outreach phase continues.  In January 2006, self-audit Use Tax Returns were mailed to PA businesses, permitting them to audit their books for 2006, as well as the previous three (3) years, to determine any use tax liabilities.”

The letter, which is part of a “voluntary compliance program” (ve have our vays), ends with a friendly reminder that failure to pay could lead to jail. Thank you and have a nice day.

Use tax? As far as anyone in PA can remember, Use Tax was devised to scrape a few tax dollars from out-of-staters who worked in PA. They were using the state to pursue gainful employment, and hence, theoretically, were putting wear and tear on the highways and using our public services, and had to pay their “fair share” – 6% of their earnings. It had nothing to do with items purchased out of state.

Maybe the notices were supposed to go out, but the fact is, many businesses did not receive word of this creative new interpretation of the Use Tax, at least not in understandable enough terms, before now. My own accountant – who had never mentioned this to me, through no fault of his own, because his own colleagues didn’t know either – just told me today that the mailings from the Department to his clients started about a month ago, which was as much a surprise to them as mine was to me when it arrived yesterday. Other PA colleagues I checked with have not yet received notice. But we will all be paying “back” taxes on a new tax no one knew they were supposed to pay 3 years ago, and many will pay hefty penalties for not paying now that credit is tight and businesses are faltering!

In fact, so stealthy was the assault on PA businesses that as soon as the terrifying notices went out, a new web site opened up to discuss the new compliance initiative and how to deal with it. Obviously, the site visitors didn’t know what had hit them either!

And guess how much time Ed Rendell’s sweethearts are giving us to make the necessary calculations from 3 years of tax returns and send in a check for the last 3 years’ tax liability? Until January 15, about a month, to get the credit needed to pay this potentially crushing amount – just in time for Christmas (let them eat scrapple, eh, Ed?) and for the credit crunch. Clearly they are hoping many will not be able to pay by then and will incur juicy late fees to help bolster big spender Governor Ed Rendell’s treasury.

But would I bother to warn you about this if Pennsylvania were otherwise a business-friendly state?

Maybe not.

But there is that other little matter of the order to reduce electrical power output, imposed on utilities in PA. That’s right. No matter how many new residents PA acquires in the next few years (the government is friendly to illegal immigrants, of course), the overall power output will decrease. It has to. Otherwise the power companies pay a hefty fine. Sure, it’s their fault you moved here. How dare they?

So how does a power company go about refusing you power? Who goes first? Are hospitals exempted? How about the elderly? Do they freeze in the winter and gasp in the summer? Does anyone care for people any more? Well, as the Dems would say: the environment was here first (interpretation: get lost, humans!).

As one blog poster commented: “forget about electric cars because they will need places to plug them in to recharge the batteries.”
The post ends with the words: “Rendell, you are an idiot! The loonies are running the asylum!”

My advice to you if you live in PA or are considering starting a business here: you may want to check around first for a more business-friendly and people-friendly venue –  say, Venezuela.

Beware of this “First Amendment” group

Not all “First Amendment” groups are for the First Amendment

By Donald Hank

Round two in my exchange with The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center group, which started with a November 28 posting relating to an article Mr. Haynes had had published in the media, is now complete (see separate column).

In Haynes’ article, addressing the actions of both gay marriage advocates and traditional marriage advocates, he had mentioned a number of grievances perpetrated by the gay marriage advocates, but had also said the following about the other side:

At the same time, Mormon church leaders not only stir up anger, but also hurt their cause when they lend their support to campaigns that use scare tactics [my emphasis] about homosexuality in elementary schools and misrepresent the religious-liberty threat to churches. Mormon leaders repeatedly call for Mormons to show “kindness and respect” toward people on the other side of the marriage debate. Good advice, but in my view, the “Yes on 8” campaign didn’t meet that standard.

The background of these “scare tactics” is well known to Laigle’s Forum readers but let us recap some details first:

In areas where same-sex “marriage” is legal, pastors and even people denouncing homosexual activity on medical grounds (70% of AIDS cases are male homosexuals) have been jailed or fined. Fines of up to $15,000 Canadian dollars have been imposed in Canada, while in Sweden, Pastor Aka Green was jailed and charged with a “hate” crime for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality (the “offense” carried what amounted to a life sentence for the elderly pastor), and in Philadelphia, 11 Christians were arrested and charged with a similar “crime” for staging a peaceful protest at a “coming out” fest.

People who oppose “gay” “marriage” have pointed out the David Parker case. Here is a video that was part of this so-called “scare tactic.” It shows an interview with David Parker, who was jailed because he asked parental notification when pro-homosexual lessons were given in their son’s kindergarten, and was told by the school board that the school had a right to promote homosexuality to kindergartners without notifying parents because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. For protesting this policy, David Parker was put in handcuffs and jailed. Let me point something out that Mr. Haynes has failed to grasp.

Now a scare tactic is an unfair tactic that uses artificially generated fear of something that without this tactic, would not normally be feared.

So what Mr. Haynes and his group are saying is that people would not normally be afraid of being arrested for demanding parental notification of the fact that a school was about to teach their 5 year old that homosexuality – which the Bible clearly denounces –  is acceptable. Let me remind Mr. Haynes that I can go out and protest the Iraq war, and the government cannot threaten me with a fine or jail. I can protest any legislation I dislike. I can protest the tax law. I can protest against illegal immigration. I can protest against immigration law. I can protest laws against prostitution, laws for prostitution, laws protecting women or children, laws that hurt women and children, anything, anything under the sun. Except homosexual activity. If I protest that in Canada or Europe, I can be fined or jailed. Even in most American cities I will be harassed by the police and Americans have already been arrested for this. This is a true First Amendment issue.

But now, consider this: If they do jail or fine me and I then try to warn others that my constitutional rights are being denied me and that your rights can be denied in the name of “protecting homosexuals” (gosh, those church desecrators must be really helpless!), then Mr. Charles Haynes and his group, ostensibly dedicated to the First Amendment, not only will not protect me, they will in fact accuse me of using a scare tactic simply because I had the audacity to tell the plain truth!

One would expect that a group with a name like Freedom Forum First Amendment Center would be interested first and foremost in the free speech aspects of this “gay” issue. Yet, they complain that people on both sides aren’t polite enough. When have you ever heard of any homosexual being fined, jailed or charged with a crime simply for protesting in favor of homosexual “rights” or “marriage”? And when did the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center ever raise a finger in protest against such obvious violations of the First Amendment as the jailing or fining of Christians, which – need I remind them? – was written largely to protect religious speech.

Obviously, this group is interested in something quite different from the right of free expression, because they are lumping peaceful opponents of same sex “marriage” in with homosexuals who riot on the streets, break into churches, destroy property and disrupt religious services.

To refer to legitimate protests against horrific tyrannical deprivation of basic human rights as a “scare tactic” can only be a tactic in its own right to muzzle those who protest homosexual “marriage.” To this extent it is part of the Left’s agenda to undermine the value of the traditional family to the greatest possible extent.

For those who think this idea of the Left promoting homosexuality is a chimera of my imagination, let me share with you an email I received from Walter Schneider of Fathers for Life. I asked Walter if there was any literature on how homosexuality is used by the Left to promote their anti-family agenda. His response:

Yes, there is information, in The Socialist Phenomenon and elsewhere, on how homosexuality is used to push the socialist agenda.

I know that you will be interested in the information I will provide in response to your question.  For that reason I give you a fair amount of it and will provide pointers of a more general nature.

Just now I searched The Socialist Phenomenon for “homosexual” and found this:

  • Deschamps considers various manifestations of evil to be the result of social conditions; he includes even homosexuality, for example. (p. 117)
  • Marcuse speaks here of the end of culture in the old sense of the word: “It would still be a reversal of the process of civilization, a subversion of culture — but after culture had done its work and created the mankind and the world that could be free.” (119: p. 198) The essence of this upheaval Marcuse describes in poetic terms by juxtaposing Prometheus, the hero of repressive culture, with the heroes of his own New World — Orpheus and Narcissus. He ends as follows: “The classical tradition associates Orpheus with the introduction of homosexuality.

[232]


Like Narcissus, he rejects the normal Eros, not for an ascetic ideal, but for a fuller Eros. Like Narcissus he protests against the repressive order of procreative sexuality. The Orphic and Narcissistic Eros is to the end the negation of this order — the Great Refusal. In the world symbolized by the culture hero Prometheus, it is the negation of all order; but in this negation Orpheus and Narcissus reveal a new reality, with an order of its own, governed by different principles.” (119: p. 171)

The most active socialist current of recent times, the New Left, proved to be extraordinarily receptive to Marcuse’s teaching and was to a considerable extent influenced by it. Marcuse’s basic propositions are closely paralleled in the slogans of this movement and serve as their theoretical foundation. For instance, the liberation of sexual instincts finds expression in the “sexual revolution,” and the suppression of repressive reason is demonstrated in the “psychedelic revolution,” that is, in the mass use of hallucinogens. Even ostentatious slovenliness can be theoretically justified, for according to the theory, ego and superego suppress the instincts connected with the sense of smell and enforce the perception of strong smells as “disgusting.” (Furthermore, the dominant classes associate garbage with the lower classes, which are perceived negatively as “the dregs of society.”) These views also serve as a theoretical basis for “left art,” which fosters the idea of “anti-cultural” (or “cultural”) revolution, of the destruction of “repressive” or “stifling” culture, up to and including a heightened interest (in both literature and ,art) in garbage and excrement as means of “exploding bourgeois culture.”…. (pp. 232, 233)

  • The last hundred years, particularly the twentieth century, have brought socialism unheard-of success. This has been primarily a success of socialism in its Marxist form, mostly because Marxism has been able to answer two questions that always stand before socialist movements: where to seek the “chosen people” — i.e., who is to destroy the old world — and what is the supreme authority sanctioning the movement?

[299]


The answer to the first question was the proletariat; to the second, science. At present both answers have become ineffective, at least for the West. “The proletariat has become a support for the system,” Marcuse complains. “What is a proletariat if it is not revolutionary? And it is, indeed, not revolutionary,” Sartre confirms. And science has lost its prestige and its role as unquestionable authority; it has become too popular and widespread, and ceased being the secret knowledge of a select few. Moreover, many of its gifts have recently proved to be far from beneficial. For this reason, Marcuse calls for replacing science with a utopia, for granting the role held by reason to fantasy. Until these fundamental questions find answers adequate to the new epoch, it will scarcely be possible to expect success for socialism commensurate with that of Marxism. Meanwhile there have been and continue to be attempts in this direction. For example, the search for the “chosen people” seems to be the real meaning behind the “problem of minorities” which so engages the Western leftist movements: students or homosexuals or American blacks or local nationalities in France. …There is no doubt that other answers will be found — the tendency toward socialism that grips the West speaks for this. (pp. 299, 300)

Herbert Marcuse was a member of the “Frankfurt School”, a communist think tank (The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research), whose members (all Jewish) were invited in the beginning of the 1930s to come to the USA, to take teaching positions in the USA.  Some went to Columbia, where a department was created for them.  Some went to Brandeis, and some of them took controlling positions in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (yes, McCarthy was right; there was a communist behind every bush).

Especially Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno became key-influences for the launching and implementation of the cultural revolution in the 1960s and 1970s.  The Frankfurt School is very much alive now and re-established itself in Frankfurt, Germany.  (At Fathers for Life you can find more leads on the nature, role and influence of the Frankfurt School.  That will produce a large number of returns.  You can narrow down those returns by combining “Frankfurt School” with other terms.  The most convenient method for searching the site is to use the search-input field at the upper right-hand of the web pages at Fathers for Life.)

Rather than merely focusing on homosexuality, The Socialist Phenomenon mentions, more often and more prominently, various circumstances that are manifestations of the deliberate destruction and replacement of the traditional nuclear family, such as “community” families, polygamy, state-ownership of children, and so on, all of which are of course, becoming very pronounced developments in the present socialist re-engineering of humanity.

End of Walter’s message.

Friends, there are 2 main types in the homosexual “rights” movement:

1 – Actual homosexuals who desire to be affirmed by society and are prepared to reshape society to make this happen. To some extent or another, these are what Lenin called “useful idiots,” not because they are stupid but because they are unaware that they are being used for a cause that has nothing to do with their own group’s issues.

2 – Leftists who are following the agendas set forth by “social change” agitators like Marcuse, using any and all interest groups that can be portrayed as “victims.” Homosexuals, who have never been seen as victims in the past (rather, by many, as carriers of an unhealthy and dead-end lifestyle and, as seen by the religious communities, as people given over to sin), now become downtrodden underdogs, never mind the fact that many are multimillionaires and their average net incomes exceed that of the general population.

It is hard to say exactly what the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center’s agenda is. But one thing is certain: They are not focused on protecting your First Amendment rights.

In defense of traditional marriage

I previously presented the first round in an exchange in which I defended traditional marriage against an influential proponent of “gay” marriage. It is worthwhile to consider the arguments both for and against marriage in order to become more effective in the fight for our culture. Every one of you who believes marriage is sacred and is between a man and a woman is now considered the enemy by our leftward tilting elite in media, education, academe, the psychology racket, and, increasingly, in government. But you don’t have to sit and take it. Not by any means! Their arguments may sound intellectual, but it is all a facade, and you can break it down instantly with a little training.

Here is round 2 in my discussion with Charles Haynes. My responses are in brackets:

Hi Don,
Thank you for your very full and interesting response.  I am not trying to sway you on this issue.  I recognize that deeply-held convictions are at stake here [pro-homosexual activists like to speak of “deeply-held” convictions of religious people who oppose them. Are they trying to say that their own convictions are shallowly held?]
 
But I do have a few additional comments in response to the points you made.  Your Brazilian example offers some support to the arguments made by advocates of same-sex marriage:  When interracial relationships were legally recognized as “marriage,” people did accept these marriages, “whether they liked them or not” — as you say.  Having grown up in the deep South, I can assure you that many people rejected interracial marriages as marriages (some still do) — but, of course, were forced to “accept” them for legal/civic purposes after the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving.  This is now happening with same-sex marriages in Mass. and in some countries. [But interracial marriages were still recognized as marriage, legal or not. My focus was on the definition, not the legality. That is why I use quotation marks around “marriage” when it is preceded by “same-sex”]
 
I am not an expert in the history of marriage, so I will continue to read about it (including the authors you suggest).  But I think the struggle of women (and their supporters) to change the legal definition of marriage in ways that give women basic rights is well-documented [Unfortunately, the “victimization” of women hurt them more than it helped them]. I understand the “protection” argument (from another era [Are you trying to say protection of women is outdated…?])… but I think most of us now recognize that in matters of property, inheritance, divorce etc., women were indeed exploited in that system [But marriage was between a man and a woman. That was the definition. You are getting off-topic].  This is, of course, still the case in many parts of the world.  Most women most certainly do not “rule the roost” in much of the developing world. In India, for example, the treatment of millions of married women is appalling. True, there is a tradition of women taking charge of the household in families where the husband is the bread-winner (although this usually means the mother-in-law with the wife often treated very poorly).  But for the many poor women who do the back-breaking work in the fields while husbands often do little or nothing… women who have little protection in a culture that traditionally defers to male power and dominance … it would come as a shock to be described as “ruling the roost.”  I have spent considerable time in India — and I can only hope and pray that marriage continues to be redefined [Is marriage not a union between a man and a woman in India? I think you are being creative with the word “redefine.” They won’t need to redefine marriage to protect women. BTW, I wonder if Indian women would consider it safe to be sent on a bombing mission in Iraq, why the work would not be back-breaking if men did it and why it is more abusive for women to do hard work than men] there in ways that finally and fully protect women.

I agree that same-sex marriage is a very significant redefinition of “marriage” (bringing to the surface relationships that have existed throughout history, mostly underground [But never referred to as “marriage” in the past.]).  For those who believe as a matter of religious conviction that this is wrong — and that the sexual activity associated with same-sex relations is “unnatural” and wrong — no amount of “acceptance” of homosexuals in society will make same-sex marriage “right.”  I understand that. [But do you understand that not all proponents of traditional marriage are religious – or at least not all Christian? Please check out this article on that subject].  But I think the consequences are more likely to be good for society, rather than the dangers you cite.  Gay relationships and families are a reality that will not go away [Is the fact that you think “gay” “families” won’t go away an example of why “the consequences are more likely to be good for society”? If so, then we could also say terrorism will not go away, so we need to legalize it so that we can control it better, right?].  Legal recognition and state benefits will help provide stability and strengthen gay families [Now you are redefining “family.” I do not accept this redefinition].  After so many decades of “marriage” being debased in our culture (quickie weddings and divorces, TV contests for picking a wife/husband, etc), recognition of same-sex marriage may strengthen the meaning of marriage [Please show me how “gay” marriage would remedy the problems with heterosexual marriages. BTW, “gay” men have well over 100 sexual encounters on average over their lifetime].
 
As for adoption, that’s easy [I think a more appropriate word is “facile”] for me.  I know a number of wonderful same-sex couples with beautiful, well-raised children.  I would leave my children to them in a heartbeat.  [Many people have been charged by the police with being a pedophile and people said that about them too, before they were caught. BTW, you never answered my question: If homosexual adoption is ok, what is wrong with pederasty? You can’t answer that, can you?]. The larger questions about how couples have children “artificially” [do you feel uncomfortable using the word “artificial”? If so, why? If not, why the quotation marks?] applies as much or more to straight couples as to gay [As much? Even though most straight couples can have children without artificial insemination?].  I realize the ethical questions are complex and the subject of much debate [Subject of much debate only in a hopelessly corrupted society, which is what the West has become]. But the desire of people (straight and gay) to have children is strong — and these various methods are here to stay [Only if people in authority positions allow that to happen. It is clear where you stand. You now sound much different than in your article, where it almost seemed that you were neutral. You quickly have shifted into high gear for homosexual “marriage.” Really, if that was your agenda in the first place, you should have told the readers that you had chosen sides —  not that it wasn’t obvious for those of us who read between the lines]. So we need to continue to press for the best ethical guidelines for the use of these methods [or for discouraging people from using them. Don’t forget that option].
 
I do believe abuse of children is “objectively wrong” [But Mr. Haynes, you keep redefining things, so I have no idea what you think child abuse is! I had asked you why pederasty is abuse and you couldn’t answer that. And you wonder why conservatives are leery of “culture change”?]– and I think the arguments for protecting children [“protecting children” has become an excuse to remove fathers from children’s lives in “family” courts throughout the West. It has already been redefined. See why I don’t like redefinitions?] are deeply ingrained in our legal system.  I see no connection between legalizing gay marriage and child abuse [What do you mean by “child abuse”? I am sure your definition is no more traditional than the other definitions you are busy eroding, and that is worrisome].  On the contrary, I think increasing the number of stable, loving homes for children, including many unwanted and abused children, will help address the problems of child abuse. The fact that a small number of (disturbed) people promote such things as pederasty is a red herring [Again, why are they “disturbed”? Only a few years ago, homosexuals were recognized as disturbed, until they organized well enough to represent a powerful interest group capable of bullying psychologists. Once pederasts get that much power, how will people combat them? By your method? That is, by redefining our vocabulary? Lord forbid! Culture changers like you really scare me, and I am not saying that as a scare tactic. I am 100% serious].  There are groups of people in this country that promote all manner of evil things… [how do you define evil? Today, that is. I know that tomorrow your definition may be different].
 
When I travel to nations in Europe, most recently Spain, where same-sex marriage is legal, I find most people see this as a matter of fairness — and think it is healthy for their societies [They think climbing in the ring with a raging bull armed with nothing but a cape is healthy too, Mr. Haynes. Let’s be serious here].  This is new, of course, and my observations merely anecdotal — so the jury isn’t in on how this change will ultimately affect Mass., Canada, parts of Europe etc. What does seem to be the case, however, is the legal recognition of gay relationships will continue apace in the many parts of the world (including, surprisingly, Latin America [doesn’t surprise me a bit. Latin America has drifted to the far left, and the Left is anti-family, as confirmed by their own writings — which is why they constantly redefine “family”]).  The challenge will be to strengthen marriage for all — and to ensure that the welfare of children is a high priority in public policy.  That’s where we should be focusing our attention in my view. [I would only ask what the definition du jour of “welfare of children” is. I am sure that in your mind, that is “the subject of much debate.”]
 
Best, Charles 

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

 

Just a reminder that

December 15th is
Bill of Rights Day

Let us give thanks to the Divine Author of Liberty

Dear Friends of Liberty,

There’s still time to register for the Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet on Monday, December 15, 2008. I hope you are planning to join us.

I am including as an attachment a copy of the registration form and cover letter for the banquet. I hope you will forward it on to others, even persons in other states. We would like to hear that there were observances of some kind in every state!

For the Bill of Rights,
and the Ten Commandments,
Carris Kocher
Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee
P.O. Box 912
Concordville, PA 19331
610-476-3482

Fighting Obama fatigue

I now that many of you by now have a bad case of Obama fatigue, even now before the Messiah has entered the White House, and are saying “no more Obama commentary, please!”

However, I would remind you that when mountaineers feel fatigue setting in at freezing temperatures, that is their moment of greatest vulnerability to frostbite and even death.

The politicians who bring you such monstrosities as a president with no clear cut national origin, or for that matter, amnesty for millions of undocumented lawbreakers, are counting on you to ultimately give up and swallow the bitter pill of constitutional failure, much in the way a frostbite sufferer gives in to fatal sleep.

So I beg you to stay awake now at this most crucial time in the history of our country, when fighting fatigue may be a matter of  life or death.

Donald Hank 

Arm Wrestling

Olavo de Carvalho

Jornal do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 27th. 2008)

        Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily, says that there can only be three explanations for the vast cover-up operation that was mounted to conceal Barack Hussein Obama’s documents from public view: either he was really born in Kenya and doesn’t want to concede he’s ineligible, or he’s got something else to hide, or else what he intends to do is break the back of the American nation, trumpeting to the four winds that he, the Anointed One, is above the Constitution, the law, the right to information and national pride. As far as I’m concerned, it’s as plain as day that this last hypothesis, regardless of whether the other two are true or not, is not a hypothesis: it is an absolute certainty. It doesn’t express what Obama “intends” to do, but rather what he’s already doing. To introduce himself to the public with a biography so full of inconsistencies and to presumptuously refuse any explanation, any proof, any document, constitutes by itself an act of utmost insolence very seldom seen. If Obama were to do this merely as a writer or a showman, it would already account for a disturbing case of megalomaniac narcissism. But to do it at the very moment he bids for the nation’s highest office, swindling the electorate to issue a vote of confidence based on blind faith, cannot be explained by mere insanity. There must be a plan, a method, a hidden Machiavelism in it.

If the proclaimed goals of Obama’s presidency are fuzzy and contradictory, the implied logic of his actions is crystal clear, and becomes still more evident through the massive presence of Clintonistas in his team. His purpose is to faithfully carry on Bill Clinton’s destructive work, inspired by Scott Talbot’s formula: to use the American taxpayers’ money to foster the growth of rival powers and debilitate US military, economic and diplomatic strength, selling surrender of the nation to “multilateralism” as the epitome of national interest, while, internally, the government’s ability to control the lives of its citizens is sharply increased and the country’s cultural defenses are diluted into a hallucinogenic potion of politically correct sewage.

The greatest obstacle to the effortless incorporation of the United States into the new globalist order is the American Constitution. That’s the reason why the likes of Obama and Al Gore can’t mention it without muttering through their teeth, betraying their intention to tear it to pieces. But to simply alter the Constitution would be too audacious. It is necessary to create a cultural and psychological environment that makes this change acceptable, and the classic method to achieve this is to impose civil disobedience as a commonplace routine, from the upper classes down, rendering the public insensitive through the peremptory denial that anything weird may be going on. That’s precisely what the democratic party did throughout the campaign, and that’s why I foresaw that, even if he had lost this election, Obama would have won the arm wrestling match against the Constitution: immunized by racial blackmailing and by the media’s undisguised flattery, he was not only exempted from the minimum of transparency that no candidate before him had dared not to abide by, but even the most trivial requirement that he prove his identity was treated as a racial insult and a symptom of paranoia, whereas his opponents, guilty until proven innocent, were forced to explain themselves, by means of witnesses and documents regarding the most trivial details of their personal lives. The Obama campaign vitiated and corrupted the American electoral system to the extent that conservatives themselves, lacking the courage to acknowledge the reality of the disaster, averted their eyes and sanctioned by omission the normalization of absurdity.  While they discussed the proposals and the risks of a potential Obama presidency, they became blind to the candidate’s actual behavior, which was mutely bringing these proposals into fruition with an overwhelming arrogance and an irreversible impetus. When trust in the soundness of institutions becomes a pretext not to protect them from an immediate and present danger, it is precisely because this soundness exists only as a pretext.

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian writer and philosopher who has taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. He currently resides in the U.S., working as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. 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.

Recommended: America’s other auto industry:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809320261867867.html