The REAL climate conference in Copenhagen

While the elitists are busy lying through their teeth in Copenhagen to control your mind, there will be a conference of real scientists and prominent speakers like Lord Monckton, telling the truth about climate change.

And you can attend. Here is the press release, sent by Philip Foster, author of “While the Earth Endures,” a must-read presenting the other side of the debate we aren’t supposed to have.

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHALLENGE

The debate is NOT over!

Please support us and help win the debate!

Early in December some 25,000 people are going to descend on Copenhagen, including most world

leaders and their retinues.

Their Mission? To agree the urgent measures necessary to prevent a global catastrophe.

The Catastrophe? That most parts of the world will soon be rendered uninhabitable as a result of runaway global warming caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 created by human activity.

The ‘Remedial’ Measures? An enforceable international agreement to impose a dramatic reduction of CO2 emissions world-wide, reversing this supposedly disasterous trend. Such reductions are being promoted as painful but necessary and anyway far better than the ‘terrible alternative’.

Fortunately, this whole scenario is a fairy story. It was created and propagated by those who stood to benefit academically, politically, financially or emotionally by raising popular fears of a modern Armageddon.

It is against this background that we have arranged a conference in Copenhagen on the 8th-9th

December at which internationally respected scientists and others will be speaking and to which the

world’s press will be invited.

It is to be called “The Copenhagen Climate Challenge” and be held in Copenhagen 8th-9th Dec.

at Dansk Forfatterforening (Danish writers Union) Strandgade 6, 1401 København K

The aim is to present to governments and activists a clear scientific challenge to either produce rigorous scientific evidence of their claims or to stop pursuing the current scaremongering and extremely costly policies. This will be done by presenting papers on the various aspect of ‘Climate Change’, such as ocean levels, CO2 and temperature, AGW and disease etc. etc. and in effect saying, “Either to put up or shut up!”

We already have the following speakers:

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Prof Fred Singer. Climate physicist and Prof. Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia

H. Leighton Steward a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive.

Nils-Axel Mörner, author of numerous research papers and the booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told, awarded The Golden Condrite of Merit “for his irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”.

Prof Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He is the author of Heaven and Earth. His previous book, A Short History of Planet Earth, won the Eureka Prize.

Being invited:

Martin Aagerup CEPOS

David Gress political Philosopher

Christopher Booker

Don Easterbrook

MEPs

And the PRESS.

We have had considerable encouragement from Terry Dunleavy of www.nzclimatescience.org.nz, and Tom Harris of www.climatescienceinternational.org plus he obtained considerable financial support for the operation. We have support too from David Bellamy, the British environmentalist, scientists from Sweden and Norway, Johnny Ball of TV science presenter, James Delingpole, journalist and writer and many others.

HOWEVER WE STILL NEED AS MUCH FINANCIAL SUPPORT AS WE CAN GET

Previous to the conference itself a list of scientists* is being compiled to support the challenge document and we intend to take big spread advertisements in leading national papers in the UK, Denmark France etc. (as much as our funds can run to).

* If you are a scientist working the field of climate or related fields and are willing to register, please email

Tom Harris tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net

The final document, which will be sent to the Sec. Gen. of the UN and heads of state etc., will be fowarded to you as soon as we have it completed.

If you would like to help please send any amount you can to:

Danske Bank

Climate Sense

Reg. nr. 3219

Konto 3219781695

Swift: DABADKKK

IBAN: DK1730003219781695

or, using a credit/debit card by phoning

Philip Foster (SMP Ltd) +44 (0)1480 399098.

1 Barnfield, Common Lane,

Hemingford Abbots,

Huntingdon PE28 9AX UK

Attending the Conference:

Places are limited, but if you would like to attend we will do our best to accommodate you.

Please email philip.foster17@ntlworld.com to book.

Graham Capper, gcad.design@yahoo.co.uk

Jens Robdrup, climate-sense@live.dk

Revd. Philip Foster MA, philip.foster17@ntlworld.com

Terry Dunleavy terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz

Tom Harris tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net

www.climate-sense.com

www.nzclimatescience.org.nz

www.climatescienceinternational.net

In the beginning was the Word

Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”

By Don Hank

Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” may be the most enlightening book I have ever read.

Please try to get it if you haven’t yet. It contains all the answers I have always wanted at my finger tips for debates with Darwinists on the origin of life (I don’t let them drag me into the species change arguments, because I would quickly be in over my head). Having been in thrall to a rigid Darwinist view of life’s origin for many years, I feel liberated about having the origin-of-life side of the theory blown sky high. The origin of life is the key aspect because it gets into the existence of a Creator.

You see, Darwin’s step by step evolution from simple to complex only seems feasible on the macro side — that is, developed plants and animals which develop even further. Darwin could show beyond a doubt that evolution had happened from wolf to dog, for example, under human guidance and from there the idea that such changes would have happened in nature in response to environment was but a stone’s throw. But on the micro level, as researchers found out about the processes in the cell (ever since the early 50s), they discovered that even the simplest cells were factories with the most complex imaginable machinery and computer systems complete with software that for all the world appeared to have been designed and written by someone. The more origin-of-life scientists looked for answers along the accidental Darwinian route, the more confused and baffled they became. The old lightning bolt in the mud theory had failed in the lab and didn’t cut it any more. So much so that today there is absolutely no consensus and the field is in complete disarray. The only scientists who appear to form a consensus are the few dedicated to the notion of intelligent design. But that is a heresy in today’s academe, where intelligence is not allowed because it is eerily reminiscent of that pesky “God delusion” along with its moral code of do’s and don’ts for mankind. Darwin was to have driven a stake in its heart.  Now it was coming back to haunt them.

The heart of Meyer’s book, which will be the chief stumbling block for Darwinists from here to eternity, is the part describing the “CAD-CAM” (CAD=computer assisted design; CAM=computer assisted manufacture) machinery inside the cell that performs gene expression by recognizing and reading the DNA code, written in nucleotide triads, and transcribing and sending the coded specs (for protein synthesis) for translation. In the ribosome (cellular protein factory), the blueprint is then read and implemented, enabling the synthesis of a specific protein to specification by the ribosome based on the information originally contained in the DNA and transferred to the RNA in a different format. Note that the data-bearing DNA, a sort of master copy, is located in a part of the cell far away from the ribosome (factory), so the transcription, for example, isn’t at all like, for example, simply making a carbon copy by just piling 2 sheets of paper on top of each other with a carbon in between and pressing hard as you write or type. Transcription (along with subsequent translation and implementation of the blueprint) is genuinely analogous to a CAD-CAM system, with its own software code.

I suppose that Meyer would groan at this description because I am still grappling with the sticky parts. It is much more complex than this, but you get the idea.

(For an illustration of gene expression in protein building, click here to go to Stephen Meyer’s web site and click on the button at the bottom right to see an amazing animation of the cellular machines at work).

Not to get mired down in detail, but Meyer also mentions machines in the cell that edit the information and others that straighten out the DNA helices and then rewind them once they have been “read” by the RNA.

Oh, BTW, the computer in the cell is capable of processing several times more data than any silicon chip known at this point. Bill Gates is cited as acknowledging this fact.

Meyer makes 4 blockbuster points:  

1 — The message is actually a true code. It is language, it is words. Although in both DNA (original data repository) and RNA (data transmitter), it is in the form of nucleotide triads (called codons), the constituent nucleotide bases constituting the code have no special chemical affinity for the proteins they signify in the code (just as ink has no meaningful chemical affinity for paper that would make certain letters stick to certain parts of a page), so the processes of recognition, transcription and translation involved in making a protein are pure language utilization processes, not chemistry! That makes the “recognition” part quite unobvious and esoteric, requiring a deciphering system that is not based on the chemical properties of the constituent parts (against initial intuitive hypotheses), so that the message borne by the code is independent of any recognizable physicochemical laws–making it a mystery. This fact alone points unequivocally to a designer who started his process with the use of words.

2 — Meyer also makes the point that the protein synthesized by this system (as all proteins in all living cells — even the simplest — are) not only could not exist without the DNA but the DNA could also not exist without the protein (because both the protein and the DNA are both part of the protein synthesis machinery and “software” essential to the manufacture and maintenance of cell constituents). Thus, unlike the chicken-or-the-egg question, there seems to be no way either could have come first. That makes evolution a very tough sell indeed. (One could actually speak of an “evolution delusion” to paraphrase Richard Dawkins).

3 — Besides the living cell, there is nothing known in nature that encodes, decodes, transmits and reads specifications and builds or reproduces machines (living or other) in this computer-like fashion. The only scheme that resembles this enormously complex machinery and computer system is man-made and requires a designer. The designer is logically the default explanation.

4 — Meyer’s colleague, statistical mathematician William Dembski, calculates that the probabilities of the simplest cell producing all the necessary proteins it needs to survive by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 41,000. This probability is so small as to be utterly negligible. In other words, the advent of life on earth was not an accident.

No one who reads this book can come away believing in the standard academic explanation that life came about by accident. Neither, claims Meyer, do many microbiologists and/or origin-of-life scientists, who are either “baffled” or are on his side.

I think this is the final blow to neo-Darwinism, at least intellectually. Now all that remains is break down the intellectual barriers on the campuses that were erected and maintained by the Lilliputians who inhabit and rule them with an iron fist. But that will be the toughest job of all (as shown by Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”). Government, the media and campuses are living proof that no common sense or any relationship with reality is required for corrupt systems to stay in place almost indefinitely and make a majority of the populace believe the Wizard of Oz is real.

Although I love education and learning, I am actually encouraged that colleges are now laying off profs in various places — like California — and enrollment is down. I say that that because learning under the principle of free inquiry is no longer taking place there. (For insight into the sad state of US universities, click on the last link under “Related”).

I hate to say it but I hope colleges get so out of reach that parents, for the time being, stop sending their kids to these indoctrination centers — at least until the colleges start returning to common sense principles.

I believe distance education is the wave of the future and courses that actually prepare for careers — non-government that is, will be the focus again.

Too bad the whole system may have to be destroyed by the bad guys before that can happen.

Related:

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/05/02/expelled-exposes-flat-world-academics/

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/04/22/254/

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/meyer.intelligent.design/index.html

Oba-mao, conservatives pulling together

Oba-mao: The Chinese see the resemblance

By Don Hank

I have said before that Obama is a Maoist. Now if a lib had heard that, I’d have been mocked for sure.

But what do the libs say now that the Chinese themselves have compared Obama with Mao? What could be more explicit than T-shirts designed and made in China that say “Oba-mao.”

I have said (to those seeking a comparison between Obama and the Soviets) that Obama was more of a Maoist than a Soviet-style communist, because – even though Stalin and Mao, like Obama, were both cult figures in their respective countries – Like Obama, Mao focused on accidents of birth, persecuting many people simply because they were born into the families of former landlords and capitalists and rewarding others for being born into poor families. Many innocent people were thrown into prison or beaten or executed on trumped up charges, but in reality, they were paying for supposed “crimes” of their ancestors. On the other hand, sons and daughters of documented peasants and laborers were given scholarships and all kinds of privileges (at least at first, before Mao started his starvation campaign against the peasants as well — there’s a lesson in there for Obamists). Many students of peasant ancestry were even given the privilege of serving as doctors in hospitals, even though they had no medical background or training (like Kathleen Sebelius) (to get a feel for what it must have been like, see the excellent Chinese-made movie “To Live,” available at Blockbusters).

Likewise, Obama’s ACORN, made up primarily of blacks, persecutes white bankers and businesses that fail to meet racial quotas, much in the way Mao’s Red Guard persecuted the former haves. Again, accidents of birth are the focus, not achievement or even ideology.

The Chinese saw the resemblance and like it. It’s high time we saw it too and rejected it fast. Maoism didn’t work in China, and it certainly won’t work here.

Read the  Oba-mao story.

 Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/2007/06/20/mao-in-america/

 

Can conservatives pull together?

By Don Hank

It seems as if all the avenues have been tried to defeat the elitist overlords in America and elsewhere, and no one has gotten to first base. The only thing these people understand is FORCE, but do we have it?

Before you say we do, let’s look at the differences between those who effectively oppose the elitists on the one hand, and the grassroots on the other:

Example 1, Politicians:

Ron Paul opposes the elite on the grounds that they have spoiled our money system. It is true. But Ron Paul is not in agreement with grassroots activists who seek to abolish abortion on the federal level because he does not warm up to their argument that all have a FEDERALY protected right to life. Instead he wants the states to sort it out, hewing to a rigid states’ rights line. Most conservative Americans want a more forceful approach to abortion and understand that our founders would also have wanted such an approach (see the union speech by Lincon linked below).

Example 2: Conservative talk shows:

Glenn Beck bravely stood up to Van Jones, an Obama czar who admitted he was a communist. Despite threats from Jones himself to pull Beck’s sponsorship, Beck hung on like a bulldog until finally, Jones was forced to quit as czar.

But when it was learned that another czar, Kevin Jennings, had, as a high school teacher, advised a youngster not to denounce a man who had been abusing him sexually, Beck didn’t have much to say about it.

Beck steers away from any even apparent confrontation with the “gay” agenda crowd and, like Bill O’Reilly, has taken a live-and-let-live attitude toward same-sex marriage. The grassroots are not quite represented here either.

Thus we see that Ron Paul is brave, but only on certain issues.

Glenn Beck is a brave heart too, but only on certain issues.

Even with these 2 brave gents emerging victorious in their respective corners, they, and most leaders like them, fall short of defending grassroots Americans — particularly the weakest and most defenseless of us — because even they are unwilling to stand up against the worst bullies on the block, each settling for defeating only one of the lesser ones.

These are 2 examples of men who have fought hard and valiantly in their own ways in different venues. Yet both seem to have a blind spot for the way the Left has been eroding our culture for decades. It almost seems as if they think issues of child protection and abortion are separate issues and must be settled on the grassroots, or state, level.

Yet morality is central, specifically on a federal level, because babies will continue to be killed in utero if we leave abortion to states, and if homosexuals are allowed to marry and take top positions in education, then we will have a rash of children being left at the mercy of pederasts, as in the case of the hapless boy who “education czar” Kevin Jennings refused to protect and even encouraged to “enjoy” sex with an abuser. (Consider that only the most radical homosexual activists, like Jennings, are appointed to these milestone positions, precisely so that the Left can flex their muscles and punish conservatives who opposed them in the past). So if you are a Tea Party attendee, pay strict attention to how your fellow partiers are treating these issues in particular. Don’t let these issues go to the back burner.

A lot of ink and talk is expended by Tea Party organizers over issues like stopping the Fed and getting our economy back on the free-market track.

But our founders understood something we are clearly forgetting: Without a moral underpinning, there is ultimately no lasting power. This is why there is as yet no clear-cut consensus as to what is fundamental in our way of life and way of government.

America cannot live by bread alone and Adam Smith’s ideology can’t even begin to save us. We need to work hard to persuade our team mates of the importance of a traditional, Biblical world view in restoring our Republic. And by that I am not talking about today’s wishy-washy religious “leaders” using slick marketing techniques to build a flock. I am talking about men who know what sin is and aren’t afraid to spell it out.

I say that because on a practical level, people cannot passionately support wishy-washy politicians who have no moral underpinnings, but on a spiritual level, God absolutely will not bless a country that calls good evil and evil good. Obama and his abject failure to solve the economic crisis — even greatly exacerbating the current one — is proof of that.

If we can restore morality, everything else will fall into place.

If we can’t, everything will just fall.

Further reading (note how Abraham Lincoln demonstrated that the founders supported federal intervention, in matters of morality, later in their public lives):

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

Eyewitness account of Fort Hood shooting

RFFM.org Exclusive: Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Killing Spree at Ft. Hood: Eyewitness Account Of What Really Happened

EDITOR’S NOTE:

 The following is a narrative from a U.S. Army Colonel who was an eyewitness to the attack on fellow soldiers by Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood, Texas on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 which led to the deaths of 13 members of the U.S. Army and the wounding of 30 others.  This JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer had his account transcribed by a retired General in the U.S. Army.  The story told here may be in contrast to what is being released to the media by C.I.D.’s* inqueries into the incident.

The following first person narrative is told by an Army officer who prefers to remain anonymous, yet desires the truth be told. 

 Since I don’t know when I’ll sleep (it’s 4 am now), I’ll write what happened (the abbreviated version ….. The long one is already part of the investigation with more to come).  I’ll not write about any part of the investigation that I’ve learned about since (as a witness I know more than I should since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation).  Don’t assume that most of the current media accounts are very accurate.  They’re not.  They’ll improve with time.  Only those of us who were there really know what went down.  But as they collate our statements they’ll get it right.

I did my SRP last week (Soldier Readiness Processing) but you’re supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it’s this big itchy growth on your shoulder).  I am probably alive because I pulled a ———- and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building).  The Medical SRP building is off to the side.  Realizing my mistake I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building.  As I’m walking up to it the gunshots start.  Slow and methodical.  But continuous.  Two ambulatory wounded came out.  Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood.

Hearing the shots but not seeing the shooter, along with a couple other soldiers, I stood in the street and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to “RUN!”  I kept motioning people fast.

About 6-10 minutes later (the shooting continuous), two cops ran up, one male, one female.  We pointed in the direction of the shots.  they headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away).  Then a lot more gunfire.  A couple minutes later a balding man in ACU’s* came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically.  He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us.

read more here.

YOU can help turn the tables on the Obama crowd (pass this on to your list!):

The Dems have found a way for their loyal Obama acolytes to support the Healthcare bill. They have set up a web site where their zombies can go and spout the party line and get their letters published in their local papers. But you can use this same site to show your local readers why Obamacare is a disaster in the making, which will heap more than another trillion dollars of debt on their children, the very last thing we need with unemployment officially reported at 10.2% — but with the actual figures estimated at up to 22% by economists who know how the feds cook the figures and how to add in a correction factor to compensate for their gross distortions.

Go to the site linked below, type in your zip code and follow the instructions from there. Let them know what REAL people think about Obamacare. The Dems will eventually figure out what happened, but by then it will be too late:

http://my.democrats.org/page/speakout/posthouseLTE

Poll shows one-quarter of world disenchanted with capitalism

BBC survey shows world disenchanted with capitalism

By Don Hank

Soon after last year’s disastrous bank crash, liberals and RINOs were quick to infer, from evidence to which only they seemed to be privy, that the capitalist system was flawed and needed regulation. Even conservatives seemed confused. Oddly, no one could come up with a uniform regulation design that would fix things or prevent such a crash. Something didn’t seem right about their take on the causes.

Not long after that, conservative pundits made an amazing revelation: Starting in the Clinton administration, an old banking law, the Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Carter for the purpose of channeling mortgages to the poor, had been strengthened. As a result, banks had been strong-armed into issuing mortgages to “underserved groups” meaning Hispanics and African Americans. Those that refused were harassed by radical groups like ACORN and/or blacklisted and/or sued by the government. Those that complied were given the highest marks and put into enviable positions from which they could make more money. The shrewdest lenders realized that this was a government-supported racket with which they could enrich themselves at little risk, as long as Fanny and Freddy were willing to back up their seemingly foolhardy lending policies. So they continued the game, and even lenders not subject to the CRA were soon cashing in, realizing that the government actually wanted them to play Russian roulette with public funds. Even when the inevitable crash came, they thought they were protected. Indeed many did get bailouts, but because of the innovative banking practice of bundling, or derivatizing, these mortgages, and then securitizing them – selling them as “securities” like stocks, bonds and mutual funds, the risk was actually multiplied to the point that even the bailouts were no longer a safeguard, because, surprise, even the US government isn’t too big to fail. The banking world on both sides of the pond, moving in lockstep like lemmings, sold and bought such “securities,” many made in the USA but also many homegrown ones, and a global disaster ensued that you are now witnessing, perhaps in person.

I know that many of you are aware of this background of the crash, but there is a whole industry devoted to telling you that this historical fact, authenticated by responsible, sober economists like Thomas Sowell, never happened. This disinformation campaign, supported by the mainstream media and universities, is overwhelming in both its magnitude and its absurdity.

I discovered this firewall of lies and distortions serendipitously while looking for articles on the issue. I had not read or heard anything lately on the causes and had also heard a Keynesian investment advisor on the radio boldly proclaiming that the capitalist system needs regulation to prevent such a crisis from recurring. Over a year ago, Sean Hannity had tried to tackle this issue, but I noticed that his grasp of the facts was a bit slippery. Later, the rest of the pundits also just dropped the ball. In retrospect, it is easy to see why. People are lazy by nature. There are a lot of esoteric concepts and language in this issue and it takes a bit of study. And after all, what’s it matter? We are only talking about your survival (please excuse the sarcasm).

To get to the bottom of this, I typed “cra causes bank crisis” in my search engine and found, compared to the legitimate articles plausibly describing the role of the CRA and government meddling in mortgages, about 20 times more articles either downplaying the role of the CRA and Fanny-Freddy and the strong-arming of banks or actually bold-facedly declaring that the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis. The gist of each one: capitalism can’t sustain itself without government regulation. We desperately need socialism under a scheme of global governance. Quick, give up your sovereignty and pledge allegiance to the UN before we all die. The truth is that government over-regulation of a toxic kind had threatened the world’s economy and those who were responsible for this outrage were self-righteously preaching to the rest of us that we were somehow the culprits and would now have to submit to their tyranny.

This is the time for conservative pundits to fly into action and defeat this insidious disinformation campaign. It is not new information that is needed, but someone must look at all the rubbish that is being written and start debunking it, because these government induced toxic loans are still ongoing. Right now the FHA has taken over the role of Fanny-Freddy in backing them and is starting to suggest that they too need a bailout. Nothing has changed. The actors are just shifting roles. We are not supposed to pull out of the crisis. It is just going to get worse — with “stimulus” money.

And that will be more evidence that the free market system “needs government control,” quick, before anyone has time to study the issues and recognize what actually hit them.

With the mainstream media and America’s – and Europe’s – professional pseudo-intelligentsia working overtime to show that global capitalism has self-destructed and that the story of the big-bad CRA and of Fanny-Freddy being the fox in the hen house are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, it is no wonder that the entire world is tilting to the Left in its thinking on so-called capitalism. As BBC reports (not without a certain unmistakable Schadenfreude), almost a quarter of people surveyed throughout the entire world are now saying that capitalism is fatally flawed.

Yet when you look at these statistics, you see that Americans are among the least deceived. BBC states: “In only two countries, the US and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.”

I believe this is due to at least 3 phenomena:

1—Americans are smarter than the rest, including the BBC, because they have the commons sense to support the free market,

2–We have pundits like Rush, Savage, Farah, Beck and a whole slew of small but mighty web sites out there, like Laigle’s Forum, unspinning the spin and setting people straight.

But there’s also this I’m afraid:

2—Many Americans haven’t figured out that capitalism is no longer in place here. Many years ago they watched sanguinely as their government propped up a failing Chrysler, naively believing that the government was actually “saving” capitalism and the free market.

What was actually happening was that the stage was being set (BY BOTH PARTIES!) for Obama to come along decades later and deal the free market what was calculated to be its death blow.

There were other steps along the way to what is now being called alternately fascism, corporatism and even communism. Pick your –ism, but don’t call it capitalism, because Adam Smith would not see his ideal embodied in what we call big business in the West today.

Afterword: A reader emailed me that it was good news that 3/4 of the world still believe in capitalism. But if you go to the BBC article linked above, you see that of the 3/4 who still have not given up on capitalism, the majority by far believe the propaganda. They choose the option that capitalism “Has problems that can be addressed through regulation and reform.” A European Christian friend writes that neither capitalism nor communism are good — a conclusion that leaves socialism as the default system. If we lose this one, there will be no powerful conservative in the USA to say “tear down that wall.”

For Christians who think socialism is part of Jesus’ plan, please read the following article:

http://laiglesforum.com/2006/12/11/the-religious-left-in-bible-times-part-1/

Both parties plant jihadists in US armed forces

Both parties plant jihadists in US armed forces

By Don Hank

Have we progressed to the point that we can see through the phony left-right divide in American politics? I hope so.

I don’t mean that there is no such thing as a left-right difference. There is. Professor Olavo De Carvalho, defined the twisted mentality of the Left, which he calls the “revolutionary mind,” in a lecture (as yet unpublished) that he gave as part of a philosophy course.

But in America, while the Left is still very much the same left that gave itself that name in the French Revolution, the “right” is a malleable jellyfish-like creature that has allowed itself to be redefined, not by its own adherents, but by the wily Left.

Thus, it is a shapeshifting part man part monster, that no one can know because once its malevolent identity is known it immediately transforms itself into something benevolent, and likewise, once it has gained your trust as the benevolent entity you could have sworn you saw in it, it changes back into a serpent and tries to bite you.

I am not saying not to trust the right. Just don’t quite trust anything that calls itself by that name and is making money off of saying conservative things. The reason for this is simple: There is more money to be made in fooling naive conservatives than in being an authentic conservative. The Left controls the purse strings today.

George Bush Sr. and G.W. Bush are the quintessence of the kind of shapeshifter described above. One sprang from the Reagan administration and was trusted for a while until his true identity became known as a New World Order proponent. Dubbya was more subtle, and many trusted him because, unlike his father, he spoke of being a born again Christian.

Yet, many of us now see in him the globalist, and, yes, leftist, that he really is, and was all along. For me, the scales fell from my eyes when I heard him proclaim, speaking of the illegal aliens, “they’re good people looking for a better life,” and speaking of the amnesty he promoted, “it’s good for our soul.” He was pretending to be our shaman, our link to God, not our mortal leader, and he despised us, thinking we were more stupid than we were.

And the perfidy he had been perpetrating behind the scenes is still coming to light.

Referring to the Muslim mass murderer who shot down his comrades at Fort Hood, radio host David Levine writes:

How did we allow this to happen? Muslim terrorist sleepers in our Armed Forces…Rumsfeld and Bush are the reasons why illegal alien gang bangers are in our Army. But Muslim American citizens? Rumsfeld was desperate for soldiers in 2004 while trying to run a “p.c. war” (without using blanket bombing planes to do the job), an insane war that was killing our soldiers and Marines in record numbers. Conscription was low because, wisely, Americans didn’t want to get blown up by an IED in or around Baghdad as the Pentagon had failed to foresee the need for heavily armed vehicles and body armor, which were expensive. And we couldn’t construct vehicles to withstand the powerful IEDs. Instead of having the cojones to institute the draft (which of course would have, I believe, ended the Iraq War years ago because of the mass protests that would have occurred) or settle on blanket bombing so that our Army and Marines wouldn’t be used as fodder in door to door gun battles with terrorists, Rumsfeld got the approval from an EO signed by Bush in 2004 to recruit and enlist illegal alien gang members by the thousands, offering them citizenship if they served faithfully. Muslim Americans were already in the Army from the Papa Bush and Clinton years. I believe that their numbers in the U.S. Army increased significantly during the Iraq War. Could we have stopped Muslim Americans from enlisting and could the Pentagon have weeded out the thousands of U.S. Muslims already in the Army? Of course! There are ways of vetting people that are near-foolproof, but it’s costly and it takes time and Rumsfeld didn’t want to take the time because though we had won the war, we were losing the Occupation of Iraq. And of course, Bush didn’t want to be seen as “anti-Muslim”, nor did the Army want to be seen in the same way.”

And indeed, as it now turns out, advisors to the Obama transition team, named during the Bush administration by Homeland Security officials chosen by Bush, had chosen, in 2008, Major Hasan, the Muslim mass murderer of Fort Hood, as an advisor to the Obama transition team:

http://www.examiner.com/x-27803-Trumbull-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d6-Killer-Hasan-was-Homeland-Security-advisor-on-Obama-transition-team

Here is Hasan listed on p. 29 of the report “Thinking Anew — Security Priorities for the Next Administration,” April 2008 — Jan 2009, by the George Washington University’s Security Policy Institute:

http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf

Friends, do you now understand that there is virtually no left-right divide in American politics any more? And this is not because left and right have merged, as some erroneously contend. It is because the Left has completely absorbed the so-called “right.” There is virtually no authentic right wing any longer in American politics. Many of the phonies, like New Gingrich, are easy to spot. They give themselves away – as did Newt by supporting ultraleft candidate Dede Scozafava, or Mitt Romney, who as governor supported same-sex marriage and socialized medicine, along with the infamous “$50 abortion” in Massachusetts, after he claimed to have had his conservative epiphany.

Others are more subtle, like the vast majority of “conservatives,” who sound rock-ribbed on the economy and even pay lip service to “life,” but carefully dance around sovereignty issues like border security and amnesty for illegal aliens.

There are less than a handful of options for you to bypass the corrupt and treacherous “Republicrats.” One of the only veteran politicians to have avoided falling into line with the cabal of globalists, rich bankers, and leftist politicians that yearn to run our world is Ron Paul. A third party option is also still out there, such as the AIP and Constitutional Party. Of course, none of these has a line-up of seasoned political veterans. On the other hand, Obama is not a seasoned veteran either, but he is succeeding well enough – frighteningly well –  in ramming home his leftist agenda. So theoretically, at least, a rooky politician with a good grounding in Constitutional principles – say, someone like our first president – could possibly pull us out of the tailspin we are in. Especially since the vast majority of seasoned politicians have sold us out with their yea vote for the bailouts and stimulus packages almost none of us wanted.

If a conservative end run around the GOP and Democrat party seems far-fetched, remember: so did our triumph over the British.

But we American didn’t do it alone. We trusted in Providence, our only hope then, our only hope today.

Related:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115218

Afterword:

Some readers came a bit unglued at the contention that both parties “planted” jihadists in the military. Two objections were raised:

1–A military vet objected saying that no one can be recruited in the US military who is not a citizen. I refer that person to the following article from the Wall St Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125755853525335343.html

“Today, recruiting more Muslims is a top priority for many branches of the military. Under the Army’s “09 Lima” program, Muslims willing to enlist and serve in Iraq and Afghanistan as military translators and cultural advisers receive hefty signing bonuses and expedited paths to citizenship.”

Another objection was the notion of actually “planting” jihadists. Planting is not always intentional. I can buy a bad batch of seeds and wind up planting the wrong variety of beans in my garden. I did not mean to imply that this was intentional. Obviously, neither party deliberately planted the jihadists there. They were planted by ill-advised policies and policy makers.

Don

Another call to fight

Another call to engage the enemy

Dear Laigle’s Forum Reader,

I have another job for you. I know, I know. You have recently signed the Prague Declaration and the petition to Czech President Vaclav Klaus and you may be wondering when this will every stop. The answer is, briefly, never. The spiritual war that we are engaged in never does stop. It only seems to stop at times. Many Americans thought they had fought their last spiritual battle on the public front when they elected Reagan, or when the Berlin wall came down.

Now that we have the most openly Marxist president by far ever to have besmirched the White House, many of you are waking up and realizing this war is for real and is not going away. On the positive side, the responses to our actions and campaigns are refreshingly positive and enthusiastic — precisely because of this. We recently boosted the signatures on the Prague Declaration by 20% in a few days, even though the first 80% took 18 months (that 80% was without your help).

Unlike in the first term of G.W. Bush, for example, it is abundantly obvious that we need a lot of fixing (we needed it desperately then but most didn’t know it) and it won’t get done without you and me working personally in the ditches. It is a dirty war. And it won’t be fought on a conventional battlefield. It will be fought from your home, at your computer, on your telephone, in your community. With God’s grace it will be won, but not so that you can relax and break out the champagne. Good Americans, good Christians, good people, know when they are under attack and don’t relax for long in a war like this one. Like Gideon’s 300 elite troops, they keep their eye on their weapons and the terrain while drinking, never once letting their guard down.

Now, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute has alerted us to a new campaign in the war against the natural traditional family, and it is a mean, dirty and sadistic attack on everything you love, including your children. Scholastic, the text book seller, has decided, under pressure from the anti-American Left, to feature a children’s book that endorses the homosexual lifestyle, calling this trash one of the “best books” for grades 3-5. That’s like the UN calling the atheistic Norway, with its almost complete lack of sexual morality among young people, the best country to live in, or Norway in turn awarding Obama the Nobel Peace prize because they think he may deserve it some day, unless they miss their guess.

At Laurie’s invitation, I wrote a simple email to Scholastic with this text:

Scholastic made a conscious decision to add a book (Luv ya Bunches) to your collection that is part of the war against the natural family, knowing that the average American still believes that the natural family (mother — FEMALE, father – MALE, and children — only two sexes possible) is the best institution by far for rearing children. You spit in our eye and think you can get away with it because you can just call us “homophobes” and thereby make us ashamed that we love youthful innocence! How low your regard for our sense of decency and our intelligence! How insulting to every decent parent in our country. How desperately you need a come-uppance.

Scholastic recommends the homosexuality-promoting book Luv ya Bunches as one of the “best books” for grades 3-5. If the promotion of homosexuality is one of the best things Scholastic can come up with for America’s future, we don’t trust you with our children’s minds. In fact, we think you want to abuse our children and us.

In short, we understand that you have declared war on parents and their children.

We accept the challenge and are organizing a boycott of Scholastic.

Check out:

http://laiglesforum.com

I sent it to a number of contacts:

Here is a form to “tell us what you think” of Scholastic products:

http://www.tomsnyder.com/contactus/tellus.asp

and another:

http://scholastic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/scholastic.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php

and here are important emails:

ask@tomsnyder.com;

jboggs@scholastic.com;

Dealer@tomsnyder.com;

scholastic@mailnj.custhelp.com;

An important address, email and phone:

Jennifer Boggs
Corporate Communications & Public Relations
Scholastic
557 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
jboggs@scholastic.com
ph 212.343.6619
fax 212.343.6930

Wait, don’t stop here. Call or write or email your school principle, superintendant and school board members and tell them you won’t attend any meetings or functions that promote Scholastic products. Tell them why.

If they say they need to be “inclusive,” then ask them why they are excluding decent people and time-tried traditions that have always worked, in favor of disastrous policies that never have, and a lifestyle on which all successful civilizations have been modelled in favor of lifestyles that can kill. Tell them Scholastic has let you know it wants you excluded. Tell them now you are fighting back and you hope the school they have been chosen to administer is on the right side of this battle, because their choice may well determine the future of their career.

Don Hank

 

Boycott Scholastic Books

By Laurie Higgins, Director of ISI’s DSA, Illinois Family Institute

The famous — and soon to be infamous — Scholastic Books has decided to include the pro-homosexual book for 9-12 year-olds, Luv Ya Bunches, in its middle school book fairs. This troubling book is already in the Scholastic Book Club catalogue, which is distributed to elementary school children.
Because of the vociferous protests of homosexuals and a petition drive by the pro-homosexual organization Change.org, Scholastic Books has reversed its initial decision to exclude the book from their book fairs. It will now allow Luv Ya Bunches to be included at its middle school book fairs.
According to the Guardian, author Lauren Myracle “who regularly makes the list of the most banned and challenged authors in the US — capitulated on the language, removing words such as ‘geez’, ‘crap’, ‘sucks’, and ‘God’, but refused to replace the lesbian parents of her character Milla with a heterosexual couple.” Scholastic Books includes Luv Ya Bunches on it’s “Teacher’s Picks” page as one of the “Best Books” for grades 3-5.
Change.org describes Scholastic Books as “one of the largest education publishers in the world with broad influence over the reading materials of children everywhere. . . .These are the same book fairs that have reach [sic] to millions of schoolchildren nationwide.” Clearly, homosexual activists recognize the potential Scholastic Books has to transform the views of impressionable children.

Read more:

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34618

Is it too late?

Is it too late?

I hate to ask that question. I was thrilled when big bad Dede Scozzafava stepped down and handed over the Republican candidacy to Doug Hoffman.

That is because I knew Hoffman had said he was pro-life and, like many others, just assumed he was an all-around conservative. I should have realized that could not be true, because Doug has an R after his name and R stands for Neocon.

Americans respond favorably to politicians who speak their minds – the minds of Americans that is.

But I found a long time ago that GOP candidates routinely speak our minds but vote their minds, and pro-lifers are often one-issue voters.

I had said before that if a candidate said he was pro-life (lip service is all most pro-life voters require, not much proof), but was also weak on borders or favored amnesty, then ultimately, probably not one life would be saved, but worse, the US would be another step closer to world government, whose advocates start by erasing borders and diluting culture (the rest is easy). Since I have long observed Europe, I know what that means: dictatorship. The “nations” of Europe are no longer sovereign in any sense of that word. Even if “national” legislators were pro-life, since the central government controls everything, they can do end-runs around any “national” legislation, because all legislation must be “harmonized” to EU directives. Even electing more conservative MEPs (members of European Parliament) has no real meaning, because the central European Commission is the only body empowered to draft legislation. Thus these MEPs can only vote yea or nay on legislation drafted by zombies who despise patriotism and never once doubted the wisdom of a strong centralized government that is just one step away from world government. It is, my friends, a dictatorship – sort of like the “People’s” Republic of Wherever, where the people have the right to pay their taxes and obey the law, or else.

Why do I talk so much about Europe, you say?

Because soon we will be indistinguishable from them and then merge with them – unless we stop the 2 party fraud.

When a pro-choice far-left Dede Scozzafava is replaced by a weak-kneed Doug Hoffman, that is a bait and switch. The “people” think they have won a round, but the fact is, they have been set up.

I have no quick answers here but one thing I would do immediately is stop voting for anyone in the GOP. They are incapable of respecting the Constitution, because that would mean “offending” too many people.

Here is the game plan: we offend and obey the Constitution or we grovel and die like Europe.

I am grateful to my mentor Dave Levine for the following no-punches-pulled article.

Don Hank

 

Doug Hoffman, Milquetoast Conservative for Congress (by Dave Levine as a “special” to The Dave Levine Show)

By Dave Levine

I’ve been in contact with the Doug Hoffman Campaign the last few days. I was hoping to interview him on my show. However, I’ve withdrawn that offer for one, simple reason: Doug Hoffman is an “anything but the Libtard” candidate. He is NOT a conservative! He’s just another milquetoast New York Republican with some conservative positions. Visit his website. His position on illegal immigration is chocked full of fallacies including the false accusation that anti-Invasion folks like me want to stop all immigration. He seems to be lumping illegal immigration with legal immigration and he appears to be proposing Amnesty.

To wit:

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration?

Hoffman: “There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here – while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.”

My thanks to Hanen at Sentinel Radio for the above quote from Hoffman and the link to his positions page below. She also emailed me this blog with some very interesting comments:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/doug-hoffman-milquetoast-1