It’s not a party, it’s World War III

It’s not a party, it’s World War III

Don Hank

We Americans keep forgetting that America is really just a microcosm that reflects a nearly-uniform situation existing throughout the Western world. Not only does the elite extend across party lines in Ameria, but our elite is part of a much bigger World Elite that exhibits the same identical behavior everywhere, the aim being to destroy what is left of Christian conservative culture and replace it with Marxist social chaos. You know numerous examples of how that is done. Just think ACLU.

One of the main weapons used against us is virtually unlimited immigration. Our country is being flooded with illegal immigrants, who are portrayed in the media as victims. In the street and in our economy, we see the opposite: American workers stripped of jobs, hospitals forced to donate a high percentage of services to illegal aliens, federal prisons with disproportionately high alien populations, foreign gangs of juvenile delinquents, cities and states (CA comes to mind) going bankrupt from the enormous burden of services funneled to undocumented aliens who don’t pay their share of taxes.

But this elitist attitude that drives unlimited immigration and the political correctness that forbids us to discuss it honestly, or even uses the courts to oppose laws like that in Arizona aimed at controlling the crime, drugs, economic chaos, soaring unemployment, imminent bankruptcy, etc, is not specific to America.

Things are worse in the UK and Germany, for example. And most of us can recall the Muslim riots in Paris a few years ago. And as a footnote: Panama is also toying with an amnesty for its illegal aliens, mostly Chinese.

Which brings us to a recent report from Germany about a school that has been taken over by Muslims. The remarkable thing about the report is that it was made by a mainstream news outlet in a country where it is all but forbidden to speak openly about the ills of Islam. Things are coming to a head in Europe just as they are here, where Americans in state after state seek legal means to stem our own immigration tide. The elites, who suffered a major setback in the arena of global warming, and had their foolhardy Marxist lending policies turn into a worldwide financial disaster, are now being forced into a corner in the area of immigration as well, as their own media confront a situation that can no longer be ignored.

My translation of the report summary follows (my comments are in brackets):

Fighting in the classroom — German students in the minority

For 45 minutes, ARD [a German TV network] showed the everyday reality in a high school in Essen [in North Rhine-Westphalia]. A daily reality of brutality, a dark parallel world in which Germans are terrorized and Islam sets the tone.

156 students, 70% Muslims. Turks, Lebanese, Kurds. Principal Roswitha Tschueter says: “The violence is coming mostly from the Lebanese students.”

Sebastian (16) is constantly beaten up by fellow students [the author didn’t quite have the nerve to say “Muslim” here]. His mother says: “They even beat him with a chair.”

Hulia (17) converted to Islam. Her Palestinian boyfriend says: “She doesn’t party, doesn’t wear miniskirts. German girls have too much freedom” [true, but if the German society allowed Christians the same freedom of expression as they do Muslims, Christian morals would flourish again. Germany bans home schooling and often removes kids from Bible-believing Christian homes under the pretext that they are creating a “parallel society.” This is nothing but an extension of Hitler’s ban on proselytizing. But it’s not only Germany. Throughout the West, we are taught that Christianity is not to be used to impose any sort of morality. “Church” leaders have soft-pedaled the moral aspects of Jesus’ teachings to the point that today’s “Christians” deny that there is any universally valid moral teaching at all – particularly as relates to sex. In a society where Christian morals are taboo and adolescents start having sex early and with numerous partners – with all the attendant disease and socio-psychological fallout, it is no wonder that Islam looks attractive to many young people in a “Christian” society where morality is in free-fall, seeking a form of order and righteousness. The tragedy is that Christianity has been so hamstrung and sissified by church “leaders,” educators and the media, that it is not seen as an alternative — though it can offer the same order and righteousness but without the violence and coercion of Islam. Thus the only viable alternative is ignored].

A lot of students [Muslim] think: The Germans are sh-t. You don’t make friends with Germans.”

“They call you a nazi if you express yourself,” says one girl.

During Ramadan [when Muslims fast], they spit in the German students’ food.

Muslim girls can only go swimming fully clothed.

One [Muslim] girl, asked what kind of husband she would like to marry, said “one who doesn’t beat me.”

The current regime is the most Islam-friendly one ever. Obama, whose warm feelings for Islam and disdain for Israel, for example, are undisguised, has invited 250,000 Palestinians to resettle in the USA. It is only a start. Judging by the situation in Europe, it is just a matter of time before America is Islamized, unless God intervenes and awakens us from our opiate slumber. And reminds us that this isn’t a party. It’s a war.

Even non-toxic dispersants bring destruction to the Gulf

Dispersants, non-toxic but potentially deadly

Don Hank

I have subscribed to the EPA’s alerts list on the steps being taken by the government to clean up the Gulf. So far, every alert has focused mainly on the toxic effects of dispersants, assuring the public they have very low toxicity.

Generally speaking, however, discussions of dispersant toxicity – e.g. test reports on dispersants issued by the EPA – are dangerously misleading because they invariably point out only how innocuous the dispersants themselves are –  a red herring if there ever was one, because dispersant toxicity is not the issue here, and it is alarming that the EPA does not seem to notice this.
You see, the dispersant does not need to be toxic itself to activate (or develop) the toxic effects of the crude oil itself, and therein lies the danger.
When a dispersant is applied onto an oil slick in deep water, the effect is to disperse oil that until that time was more-or-less safely amassed on the surface – at least temporarily – and hence sequestered away from the depths. It had limited impact on deeper lying wild life. Until that point, it was a simple matter to collect the oil with skimmers, the only reasonable removal method for use in deep water (particularly since it enables the valuable crude to be collected and sold so it can help pay for the cleanup). Once dispersant is applied, however, the oil can no longer be collected because the dispersant acts as a surfactant (detergent) and emulsifies the more volatile compounds in the oil. These toxic volatiles are then irreversibly dissolved in the water fully developing the toxicity of the petroleum oil itself. The process is exactly the same as that occurring in your dish water when oily residues from the frying pan are emulsified and dissolved. The crucial difference is that your frying oil is not toxic. Crude oil is.
Meanwhile, the less-volatile compounds such as tars, which do not dissolve, settle to the bottom or agglomerate and develop their toxic impact on mollusks, crustaceans and fish living deeper down. Once a certain level of these tars is reached in the environment, the living things coming into contact with them can no longer be used as food. The time it takes the oil-eating bacteria to degrade these dispersed oil components will vary, but the process can take years. Vast areas of the Gulf can be effectively lost to fishing for a very long time.
That the EPA would even think of perpetrating such a disastrous – and completely unnecessary – toxification process is beyond me, unless they have some ulterior motive.
Sure, in the shallows, dispersants can and should be used. But in deep water, where skimmers can quickly get up almost all of the oil, there is absolutely no excuse for their use.
I have contacted the EPA with these concerns, and they have not responded. They appear impervious to any of the concepts I have laid out here and refractive to persuasion. Perhaps the only hope we have is that some foreign government or entity will bring this dangerous, unscientific behavior of the EPA to the attention of the world press at some point and initiate an action forcing our government to take the appropriate steps.

That is not a far-fetched expectation: By contacting the Houston Chronicle, the whistle-blowing Dutch government, has already applied pressure on the administration to accept their offer of skimmers – an offer that was made 3 days after the spill. Nonetheless, a reluctant EPA waited one and one half months to accept the skimmers and even then, hamstrung the skimming process with unreasonable restrictions that greatly slowed this urgent and vital removal operation.

Whether motivated by the US government or by a foreign government’s intervention, a ban on dispersant use in deep water is absolutely necessary whenever skimmers are available – and they almost always are.

Obama was odd man out at the G8 and G20 summits — the only one not to renounce furhter use of the Keynesian bailout system. The rest of the attendees urged him to stop issuing bailouts. Now it appears that, despite prodding from our allies, this “green” president is odd man out again: the only one dragging his feet on cleaning up the Gulf.

Please be sure to read the comment by microbiologist Dr. Mir Islam in the comments section below.

Read more on this subject:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/26/obamas-coup-de-grace-for-the-gulf/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/17/a-problem-solving-method-that-is-not-and-is-popular/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/10/high-level-eco-terror-or-incompetence/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/14/its-official-petroleum-is-a-waste-product/

Obama lawsuit against Arizona not based on law

Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law

Don Hank

As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.

The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.

Text sample [my comments in brackets]:

“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”

 If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.

The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.

Further reading: 

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/feds-sue-arizona-over-1070it

Darwinists’ behavior supports creationists’ arguments

How Darwinist activists prove creationists’ argument

Don Hank

Early last year, I wrote a synopsis of “Signature in the Cell” which was posted both at Laigle’s Forum and at Amazon, and shortly after that I was invited to participate in an Amazon forum discussing the book.

The “scientists” I was debating with kept diverting attention away from the main topic — i.e., the absurdly high odds against the cell having “evolved” randomly. Stephen Meyer says mathematician William Dembski calculated that the chances of all the amino acids of a cell appearing in the correct sequence were 1 in 10 to the 41,000th power. On top of that, cells need machines to transport components from one part of the cell to the other, and these machines (organelles) are indispensable. Thus, the amino acid sequence and the cell machines would have had to “evolve” all at once, because without one of these amino acids or without the machines, the cell dies. These odds are insurmountable and no evolutionist can argue for a random evolution of the cell without sounding like an idiot. The only chance they have is to obfuscate, change the thrust of the argument, launch an ad hominem attack on the author and intimidate the debating partner. And this is exactly what they did. For example, they tried to paint Stephen Meyer as a fraud for claiming one of his papers was peer-reviewed that they claimed was not (the fact is, it had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal but was later attacked by the editors when Meyer was recognized as being for intelligent design).

I didn’t back down, did not allow any diversionary tactics, told them Meyer’s antecedents had nothing to do with the legitimate questions he raised and kept re-focusing on this one main issue of the impossibly high odds against Darwinist evolution of the cell. One of the sub-topics was “This book belongs in the religion section,” and I had the cheek to write “All books on microbiology belong in the religion section because they all point to the existence of a Creator.” But I believe the thing that really set them off was my contention that Darwinian evolution is a major pillar in the platform of the political Left.

For whatever reason, I eventually became a target on this forum.

Within a few days after I showed them I was not backing down, someone at Amazon re-activated an old seller account I had closed out 6 months earlier. All of a sudden, a “buyer” showed up and an Amazon rep emailed me saying this buyer was upset because I had not sent him the book he had “bought.” Obviously, Amazon had just re-opened the account without authorization at the time of the debate to harass me, because I had had no further action on the account for 6 months because I had closed it out and did not reopen it or indicate to Amazon that I wished to do so.

I also had linked in the forum to the DVD “Expelled,” which was available at Amazon. Now this movie was a big assault on the evolutionists who control Amazon, because it shows the dirty tricks used by evolutionists to silence ID advocates – people like me. And worse, I was using an anti-evolution material available at Amazon, making them complicit in this assault on them.

So what did some higher power at Amazon do in response to this? I discovered serendipitously that they somehow routed my link to what I suspect was a dummy site that looked exactly like the regular Amazon site and they showed the price of this $20 DVD as $999.99!

I mentioned this harassment at the forum and thanked them for doing it because they had proven that

1–evolutionists can’t debate with reason and logic and therefore need to resort to childish tactics.

2–the harassment of ID proponents detailed in Ben Stein’s DVD “Expelled” was not an exaggeration.

By failing completely to come up with cogent arguments and by instead diverting attention from the thrust of my argument and, failing that, by intimidating and harassing me, they provided me with more evidence against evolution than I could have gotten by reading a dozen books on the topic.

The Left truly is its own worst enemy and ultimately, by its irrational and diabolical tactics, points us to God the Creator more efficiently than any detailed study of natural sciences possibly could. After all, if there is a Satan (the best explanation for such irrational behavior), then there is necessarily a God.

Oh, one more thing. After I wrote this column, I went to Amazon.com to get a link to my review of Meyer’s book, which had gone up early this year and was up throughout the debate.

Although several reviews are still posted there, mine is now missing.

Well, it’s as Ann Coulter once said: You don’t want people like that to like you.

Obama headed for Constitutional crisis?

The Obama administration has slapped a new moratorium on offshore drilling.

What part of the Supreme Court decision deferring such a ban doesn’t the Obama administration understand?

Wait, the lawsuit against Arizona proves Obama doesn’t like the way the founders set up our government, with states having rights not assigned to the feds. So apparently he doesn’t acknowledge the Supreme Court when it opposes His Majesty either.

Here’s the thing about offshore drilling we often ignore:

Like any enterprise that affects the environment, it can be dangerous in the hands of a madman. For example, suppose we had a president who refused the assistance of a foreign government that wanted to help clean up an oil spill.

Wow! That would be crazy, wouldn’t it? What with all those birds and fish out there turning black.

Oh, wait, that would be the Obama administration, which waited 1.5 months to accept a

Dutch offer for skimmers that could have removed all of the oil from the surface of the Gulf by now instead of criminally dispersing toxic oil in the water as was done by BP with Washington’s nod.

Now what happens if another government, as gutsy as the Dutch, decides to sue us for endangering the world’s oceans?

We could see that happen if they decide to stop worshipping the Messiah and doing what’s right?

Far-fetched?

Remember, Obama is odd man out in the world today. He was the only member of the G8 and G20 summits who refused to renounce the proposition of further bailouts for rich bankers.

Anything is possible, folks. Don’t be surprised.

The Dutch drew the world’s attention to the insanity in the Gulf. Who will be next to blow Obama’s whistle? Or maybe crank the heat up a notch.

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Don Hank

I recently got an email with a link to a presentation by Lou Dobbs on CNN quoting John Boehner referring to a bill before Congress that would have given all kinds of benefits to illegal immigrants. Boehner had called it “a piece of sh…t.”

The guy who forwarded it apparently thought it was current information and said ‘Well, folks, what do you think of Obama now?”

I took a quick look at the Youtube still and realized I had seen this at least a half-dozen times over the last few years, and that it was made during the Bush administration. (May of 2007 to be exact, as you can see here.)

It was in fact G.W. Bush who had pushed this miscreant bill. Yet the sender thought it was recent and was using it as an example of how pro-invasion the Obama administration is!

I have always said that Obama is one of the best things that ever happened to this country because now, the unconstitutional legislation that was given a pass in the Bush years is happening under a lefty, and finally it is being acknowledged for what it is: a leftist attempt to take over America and change it radically.

Too bad we needed to elect a self-proclaimed lefty to show people how bad – and far-left – our immigration policies always have been.

What worries me is that many of the same people who are outraged by this nonsense – and rightfully so – are backing Sara Palin. Yet during her last campaign Sara was silent as the Sphinx on immigration. You couldn’t get a rise out of her except for a boilerplate comment about how immigrants made America great. And she was, of course, running with – and enthusiastically endorsing – one of the biggest RINOs and pro-amnesty politicians in the Senate. Need I also mention Palin’s selection of a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court?

The fact that she now benefits from photo-ops with Jan Brewer does not put new spots on this leopard.

America has two vital missions that can’t be put off:

1 – to kick the far left out of power

2 – to kick out RINOs, their enablers

If we only accomplish mission one, that will be worse than a total failure, because, by anesthetizing the conservative public, as was done under the Bushes, it will enable the RINOs to accomplish all the things the far left could not do. And on top of that, it will make you complacent enough again to like what you see.

But how do we tell the difference between a true conservative and a phony who will run with the Dems once elected?

Some things you can do to prevent disinformation:

1– Compare what the Left is promoting to see if your favorite “conservative” is pushing the same thing. (Example: Both Bush and Obama signed the first bailout bill),

2 – Verify everything you read in “conservative” news sources and every email you receive from conservative friends. Their hearts are in the right place. But it’s up to you to find out where their heads are.

3 – Never “follow your heart” instead of your head. Feel-good policies are the hallmark of the Left.

4 – Always be more cautious with news sources from groups, including religious and conservative groups, that are making money off of donations or are selling news or teaming up with other conservatives in speaking engagements. These groups, even the more solid ones like WorldNetDaily (they’re behind Sara Palin), usually feel they have to be more mainstream to survive. (Some, like Judicial Watch for example, seem to have avoided that pitfall).

5 – Subscribe to Laigle’s Forum (http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1). We do not solicit your money, just your attention. You can make me — and yourself — more prosperous by defending the Constitution.

zoilandon@msn.com