Fanatics who agree with atheists

By Don Hank

When I was a kid, there was this friend of my father’s who liked to show off what a good Bible-believing fundamentalist he was. I always suspected he was terrified of burning in hell for making just a slip of the tongue and therefore went overboard to show his rigorous adherence to the scriptures in all his conversation. My father and he were discussing the biblical concept of the “four corners of the earth” one day and Brother John said “Brother Ralph, I do believe the earth is flat.” Daddy looked at him in surprise and said “how do you explain that airplanes fly around it then and that there aren’t any corners?” John got this beatific look in his eye and sighed “I just believe that if the Bible says it’s so, then it’s so.”

Many years later, I drifted away from Christ and fell under the thrall of atheistic ideas. It wasn’t atheists who pushed me in that direction. I didn’t know any atheists them. It was people like John, who insist that you either choose God or science, and there’s no middle ground. Yes, a near-illiterate hill-billy helped to separate me from my faith.

Finally, after God came for me and took me back, I had a revelation: Many atheists (perhaps the majority) and many religious fanatics both share a very important viewpoint, namely, the conviction that science is incompatible with religion and that the intellect is therefore the enemy of God.

Both of these groups have misled numerous people into believing that they have to make a choice between God and religion. The somewhat more intellectual ones without much depth or analytical ability choose science.

But the truly wise ones eventually come to understand that God created the laws of science and created life, and that all of nature, in its most spontaneous behavior, is obeying His will.

More on the revolutionary mind

Something we can call the Revolution has gutted the West — absconded with its treasure, destroyed its cultures and faith in God, enslaved it to sex and drugs, stolen democracy, replacing it with a dictatorship indifferent — and impervious — to individual needs, desires and strivings, and reduced us to the lowest common denominator.

It did so in the guise of “democracy,” with the powerful machinerey of the UN, the EU, the IMF, the New World Order, using such revolutionary terms as “diversity,” “peace,” “multiculturalism,” “world citizen,” “saving the planet,” and yes, even “capitalism” and at each step in the Revolution, warning of an emergency and reminding us that if we failed to accept the new measures, often billed as “temporary,” we could be in even more trouble. And yet, once these were irrevocably in place and we had the time to look back, some of us realized that these emergencies were mostly orchestrated by the Revolutionaries themselves.

The West bought into it and look at us now: heading towards bankruptcy, joblessness, inflation, with seemingly no end in sight.

Why didn’t we see it coming?

Because the enemy knew a valuable trick: He could make himself invisible and appear to be one of us. He could appear to care and be empathetic. He was not. He was in fact a machine with his humanity, his compassion and love, completely deleted.

No one could imagine such a thing. But his actions proved that this was so.

Olavo de Carvalho is the first person ever to have identified and defined the leftist revolutionary mentality in its minutiae. He did so by poring over the texts written by the Left itself over several centuries, starting with the Christian socialist heretics in the 13th century. In some ways, this intellectual accomplishment is comparable in its complexity to the discovery of the human genome. Although De Carvalho is active both here and in Latin America in helping keep freedom alive, speaking before various conservative foundations and institutes and bringing to light the misdeeds of tyrants, if this one lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” were his only legacy, it would be more than sufficient to earn him a lasting place in our hearts and minds.

In defining the Left, de Carvalho by default also defines conservatism — as being all that is left over after the revolutionary part of our mind is removed. In other words, the human mind functioning on a common sense basis. The American founders were perhaps the best example of such a sound, non-revolutionary mind applied to social thought and government (despite the fact that we speak of the American “Revolution,” De Carvalho has demonstrated in this lecture that this was in fact not a revolution at all!).

Without a basic knowledge of our enemy and how he thinks, the West will absolutely never have the ability to fight back. Guaranteed. Because the Revolutionary is a chameleon who disguises himself as one of us until such time as he springs into action and attacks our culture, economy, soul and way of life. The political life form we refer to as the RINO is but one of myriad examples of such mimickry. Olavo de Carvalho has provided the night goggles to view the enemy at work, or if you will, the electron microscope with which to magnify his almost imperceptible machinations on the micro level. Study his document “The structure of the revolutionary mind.” It is an indispensable book in your political Bible.

This seminal work was reviewed at Laigle’s Forum several years back (a link to the full lecture is provided below).

The author recently has added some important details and has graciously agreed to share them at this site. This is its English-language premiere.

See the below article.

Don Hank

For those who have not read the first part of Olavo de Carvalho’s seminal work “Structure of the revolutionary mentality,” go to this site:

http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/lectures/lecture-transcripts/141-the-structure-of-the-revolutionary-mind.html

 

More About the Revolutionary Mentality

Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio (editorial) , 10 de outubro de 2007

As an addition to my August 16 article, here are some other traits that define the revolutionary mentality:

1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.

2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, intentionally created to achieve this purpose.

3. Evil power dominates society as a whole, molding it after the image and likeness of its own interests, ends, and purposes. The eradication of evil must therefore take on the form of a radical restructuring of the entire social order. Nothing can remain untouched. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action. It can reach even the victims of a previous situation of oppression by accusing them of having become so used to evil that they have become its accomplices, thus requiring cathartic punishment to the same or greater extent than the old power elite.

4. Though brought about by a specific segment of the human race, evil has spread everywhere so thoroughly that it has become difficult to conceive of life without it. Therefore, the new society of order, justice, and peace can be imagined only in very broad outlines, so different will it be from everything that has existed thus far. Revolutionaries therefore have no obligation—not even the ability—to explain in plain details the plan for the new society, let alone to prove its viability or demonstrate, in terms of cost vs benefit, the advantages of the transformation. These are given as fundamental premises, so that the demand for proof is automatically assailed as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.

5. Though known only as a very general vague image, the future society puts itself above all human judgment and becomes in itself the fundamental premise of all values, all judgment, all reasoning. An immediate consequence of this is that the future, which cannot be conceived of rationally, can be known only via its image in the current revolutionary action, which in its turn, for this very reason, removes itself from all human judgment, except from that of revolutionary leaders who incarnate and personify that action. But even these people may represent it imperfectly, by virtue of their being children of the old society and carry within themselves, at least partially, the germs of the ancient evil. The prophetic and intellectual authority of revolutionary leaders is therefore provisional and only lasts as long as they have the material power to secure it. The capacity of leader of nations towards a blessed future is therefore uncertain and revocable, depending on the irregularities of the revolutionary pathway. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.

Translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota, reviewed  by Don Hank.

Reverse migration — look for it

By Don Hank

I ran into a guy from Kentucky today that I had met once before. He’s a heck of a nice guy, doesn’t speak much Spanish and likes to chat with other gringos. I hadn’t had much time to talk to him the first time we met, in a Toyota dealership near Panama City.

But this time I had a chance to ask what he was doing in Panama.

It turns out he came down here to work on construction. He’s a hard hat, and the people I was with later told me that’s a good job here, paying up to $15 an hour or more, or starting at $8 for flunky labor.

Other workers make about $300-400 a month, but construction pays great.

This is because Panama runs on that old fashioned system we have ditched in the US: common-sense free market. You get what you give; you got credit and a job, you get loans – that is, after the bank knows you for a few years; you don’t pay, you don’t get any more credit, for a long time; the bank checks out your background, your income, your work history, etc. And you don’t have these politician clowns causing a bank crash and then running around saying “we gotta find out who caused this! Duh.”

Panama is booming and banks are healthy, it goes without saying. This may eventually be the last country on earth to give in to the New World Order. But as long as there is a sovereign Panama, there is hope for humanity. BTW, one of the favorite domestic beers here is called Soberana, meaning “sovereign.” Sovereignty means a lot to Panamanians, who have no aspirations to be “world citizens.” They’re too smart for those shenanigans.

As our friend was leaving he said “I couldn’t find work back home.”

Folks, we’re talking about the USA!

That’s reverse migration and this is just the beginning of a trend. Look for it.

Terrorist who will be brazil’s president came to our White House

by Don Hank

Recently I sent to my short list a forwarded email from a Brazilian contact about a lady who, according to polls, is expected to be Brazil’s next president. This lady is really special. She is a known terrorist and bank robber and was involved in a successful plot to kill an American. Why do the Brazilians like her so much? Because they have been dumbed down beyond dumb. They have gone from dumb to dumber to dumbest and the next generation is expected to fall to earthworm level.

We are following in their footsteps. How did we get a Marxist White House resident? By being especially keen and perspicacious? No, by being extremely stupid.

I was thinking about linking to that story at Laigle’s Forum, but well, for one thing, people have a saturation threshold. There is only so much weirdness and insanity we –myself included — can take all at once. And it was, after all, an issue that affected only another part of the world, right?

Not so fast.

Another Brazilian friend sent me this today:

Do you remember that the email you sent me recently about Dilma Rousseff, the probable successor of Lula? There is another email being much spread in Brazil, where there is the information that because Rousseff had a terrorist past (this is true), she would have been condemned by US courts and, therefore, she is banned to enter the US or visit the UN. Yet, I have a picture of her with Obama in the White House last year… Obama appeared very pleased with her. 

Sure enough. I found the below-linked article including a photo of Obama shaking the hand of this known terrorist and bank robber, who, by law, should never have been given a visa to visit the USA:

http://www.theinformationcompany.net/obama-touts-trade-in-meeting-with-brazils-dilma-rousseff/

And here are some details about Dilma’s checkered past as reported at Dr. Henry Makow’s site (I have meanwhile sent Dr. Makow the above link and he added the photo of Obama and Dilma):

Dilma Rousseff, the current government Chief of Staff of Lula, a ministerial position, has been chosen by the Worker’s Party to follow the (now millionaire) former factory worker Lula to the Presidency. Lula is one of the most corrupt presidents in history and is a tool for the Marxists.
Rousseff’s father was a Bulgarian Communist.

On top of the file: TERRORIST / BANK ROBBER
On bottom:

Profession: Unknown
Activities:
1967 – agent for the Worker’s Politics Movement
06/10/68 – robbery of Banespa bank, Iguatemi Street, $ 80,000
12/10/68 – planned the murder of [American] Capt. Charles Chandler [accomplished in cold blood, in front of his house, his wife and child]
11/12/68 – robbery of Gun Store Diana, Seminario Street, 48 guns [stolen]
??/04/69 – National Liberation Command [another terrorist organization)
24/01/69 – Robbery of Quitauna Arms Depository – 63 FAU rifles, 3 INA guns, 4 munitions.
18/07/69 – Robbery of the Governor Ademar de Barros’ house [the money was never recovered]
01/08/68 – Robbery of the Mercantil of Sao Paulo bank.
??/09/69 – VAR Palmares [terrorist organization] Congress in Teresopolis.
20/09/69 – Robbery of the Public Force Police Quarters in Barro Branco.

These people receive substantial allowances for life because they have been arrested. The family of people whom they have killed get nothing at all. She climbed to the top inside the government because she is a Communist.

If you have the stomach for it, read more here

Deceit: let’s leave it to the Left of us

Only he who does nothing makes no mistakes.

Russian proverb

by Don Hank

Every time an American patriot falls for a hoax, as I did with a hoax video showing Obama apparently admitting he was born in Kenya, the devil laughs out loud.

Anthony Horvath, author of Birthpangs and owner of the site Athanatos, sent me the below link to the original of that video, clearly showing that Obama did not admit he was born in Kenya on that occasion (Laigle’s Forum partner Horvath has since posted a column on this at Laigle’s):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-President-Talks-with-Students-in-Turkey?category=9

It hurts our cause when we fall for these hoaxes. After I sent out my acknowledgment that this was false and that I had been fooled by this, one friend emailed back saying he was discouraged from ever reading emails disparaging Obama.

That is, of course, exactly what the Left wants, and it may very well be the Left that is behind this. At the very least, it is not a person who loves truth. It is wrong, it is a sin against God to perpetrate a hoax of this kind or to act dishonestly in a way intended to bring gain or false honor to ourselves. It leaves our cause of freedom with mud all over its face. Leave the hoaxes and fake data up to the Left. Do not borrow this trait from them. You become complicit when you do.

Let’s play clean. If you find yourself forwarding an email without paying enough attention, you owe it to every recipient to admit you were fooled. It is hard, but they will forgive you and sympathize because all of us have been had a time or two.

Pick yourself up after that confession, realizing you did the right thing, a brave thing, and then just march onward in pursuit of truth.

That is what smart scientists do all the time. They find some data that seems to suggest a hypothesis, and they go about finding more data to support it. The honest ones, if they are proven wrong, write up the conclusion reflecting that their hypothesis was wrong, and then they turn around and research something else.

Losers make mistakes and then try to hide them. Winners make mistakes, admit them and then dust themselves off and move on.

Of course, this “post-Christian” era is also post-scientific, which demonstrates that when you give up on the Lord, you have also given up on science and wisdom. This dismissal of science (that is, of facts) in favor of utopian fancies has led us down the primrose path almost to the point of no return. Banks can’t do science — the science of numbers — any more. They are guided by utopian dreams of “social justice,” which is neither Christian nor scientific. In other words, what they put to paper doesn’t work in the real world. In fact, this pursuit of an impossible and unworthy goal brought down banks, mortgage companies and brokerages that packaged and sold bad subprime mortgages (along with some good and mediocre ones) all over the world in a dirty scheme to save their own hides after committing the sin of giving away what was not theirs to give (by lending to the non-creditworthy). Likewise our lawmakers make unconstitutional bankruptcy laws that in fact lead to “legal” theft of goods and property, ultimately leading to equally criminal bailouts and stimulus packages, which also have failed, leading in turn to our official figure of 9.5% unemployment, which translates to over 20% unemployment in real numbers.

Likewise, scientists, like those at the University of East Anglia, can’t do meteorology any more. Instead of honestly reporting the data, as was done in the Old World Order, they tailor the data to suit the needs of world politicians subscribed to the New World Order.

We are a society of deceivers and deceived. It is no exaggeration that even we conservatives have become our enemy.

I was recently invited to join a recently founded conservative foundation as a fellow. Thinking of it as a stepping stone of sorts, and putting aside a slight anxiety over being used, I agreed to join but shortly thereafter, once I saw the shenanigans and petty politics, turned down the “honor” of being a fellow.  For one thing, the director asked me to write a press release billing this brand new foundation as “prestigious.” Sorry, but a brand new foundation hasn’t had the time to be prestigious. Lying is bad enough, but asking someone with conservative credentials to lie for you is beyond the pale.

If only people could see the harm they are doing by stretching the truth. Many of the same people who rear up in outrage against liberals for taking liberties with truth will not hesitate to do the same thing if they think it will bring them gain. For shame!

We can break free only if we are rigorously honest with ourselves and others.

Let me kick off the movement by saying:

I have been had, more than once. I’m sorry, but I definitely am not quitting. I will continue to move on, making mistakes at times, but will never quit.

In fact, I have only just begun to fight. Now let’s move on, America. This is no time to hide our heads in the sand. We have study and work to do. And — in the learning process — mistakes to make and confess.

Obama’s Confession: I was born in Kenya- a hoax

There is a video going around that appears to show what many people already know- Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen.  The benefit of the video is that it’s in his own words, making it a true ‘slam dunk.’  Unfortunately, it is just a very clever editing job by someone very good working with video.  It would not surprise me if we turned up video some day of Obama speaking back in 1999 or 2002 or before the presidency was a twinkle in his eye (so, maybe as far back as 1970) confessing as much… but this is not that video.

The video in question is here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A64PueR5nXw

It’s been through a filter or something to add to its feel of authenticity, as though the video emerged from some third party who happened to be filming, with Obama unawares.

However, I found the video here:  http://www.youtube.com/user/ObamaSnippetsDotCom#p/u/6/dJUxsFBwcbs

ObamaSnippetsDotCom seems to be the culprit, here.  On his profile page he makes it clear that he’s manipulating videos.  I’m sure the first video is his doing, too… which makes me think he was trying to bait people.  Maybe.  I note that in the first video the White House icon is not present.  Maybe there is different source video involved…

But about that source video…

This is what reveals it to be a hoax.

Proceeding to the White House website, I found the original source video behind the video.  Here it is:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-President-Talks-with-Students-in-Turkey?category=9

On the passed around video (not Obamasnippets video), cue it up to about the 13th second.
On the whitehouse video, cue it up to about 21:20.

If you notice on the passed around video, the first one I linked to in this post, at the 13th second, a man reaches down and grabs his water bottle to take a drink as Obama is saying, “Well first of all.”  He then goes on to give his ‘confession.’

Now play the white house video.  The same exact man reaches down to take a drink of water as Obama says “Well first of all.”  Only now Obama continues on to say, “I’m not a member of — the United States is not a member of the European Union, so it’s not our decision to make”  [Transcript]

I’m pretty sure we can lay this video down to rest.  It’s just a clever video meant to play to the crowd of people who have deep doubts about the eligibility and agenda of the person currently occupying the Oval Office.

Anthony Horvath is the author of the Birth Pangs series, a post-apocalyptic series describing the death of America, and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and contributor at Laiglesforum.com.

Here are the videos embedded:



First video:

ObamaSnippets:

White House video:

Arizona: As a dog returneth to its vomit…

by Don Hank

Arizona re-elected McCain to the Senate yesterday, thereby demonstrating that, despite their support for SB 1070, the majority either have a perhaps subconscious desire to be dominated by Mexican narcoterrorists or they are unfit to govern themselves. Either way, they have moved one more step toward an alien takeover and further isolated themselves from the rest of the American border community that desperately needs courage and wisdom, not folly and dhimmitude in the face of the enemy.

And who will cry for them? My tears are reserved for the innocent, not the complicit.

People wounded in the past by John McCain’s constant treachery will stop sympathizing with Arizona’s illegal alien problems at this point.

The vote for McCain was a slap in the face to every decent patriot.

If the narcoterrorists and small time Mexican thugs decide to take over completely, Arizona had better not expect a lot of sympathy from those who warned them about McCain’s treacherous ways.

McCain was their senator. Now he’s ours, again.

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Proverbs 26:11

As you will understand, this article was written to chastise the lazy, illiterate morons who voted for McCain. I recognize that there are some very hard-working patriots in Arizona who have worked unselfishly for years to stop illegal immigration. They have my deepest sympathy and prayers at this difficult time.

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

Arizona, get off the RINO bull before it throws you!

Arizona, get off that RINO bull!

Don Hank

A while back I published an article at Laigle’s Forum in which I referred to Arizona as a liberal state. At least one commentator at the site was disturbed by this, insisting that Arizona is a true-blue blue state and Arizonans are conservative.  

I’m not in the mood for shenanigans so let’s cut through the baloney. If Arizona re-elects McCain and passes over truly conservative JD Hayworth then Arizonans will have proved to be sheep and not the broncos and fighting bulls they tout themselves to be.

Yeah, yeah, I know about the skeletons in JD’s closet. So what? It’s nothing compared to McCain’s OPEN skeleton, namely, his voting record! Guess that doesn’t count any more, eh, “conservative” Arizonans? The voting records of these 2 gents is at the ACU site. One of the last years JD was in Congress, he scored 100 to McCain’s 60, so stop kidding yourselves. And puh-leeze don’t tell me McCain has had a change of heart. You know better.

A recent article in Christian Science Monitor shows that Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer’s endorsements are being taken for what they’re worth: establishment GOP tripe. At this rate, their endorsements could become the kiss of death.

Now it is a tribute to the instincts of the American public at large that they aren’t just lying down and playing dead every time Palin and/or Jan Brewer endorse a candidate. I suspect they may be doing just the opposite and automatically rejecting anyone endorsed by the Bobbsy Twins. True, Jan signed a strong immigration bill. But this is election time, so she doesn’t get many points on that score. Worse, she endorses McCain so she loses a lot of points on that score. (As you can see, I am not out to make friends, just a point that other bloggers and reporters are too wussy to make, and some of them I suspect are in McCain’s pocket. I strongly suspect it, no, strongly smell it, and I haven’t the stomach for it).

The situation in Arizona is different from the nation at large. To give you the short story, many Arizonans like to make people think they are conservative. And they even think of themselves that way. The anti-invasion bill makes them look for all the world like conservatives too.

But I’m not convinced.

You know why? Because these people are the same ones who read only the front label on the food package, the one that says “diet” or “low-fat” such-and-such — terms not subject to strict regulation. But they never read the actual nutritional information on the back of the package because they suspect the product contains a lot of fat and carbs and they don’t want to know. They’re only out to assuage their consciences. The fact is, they’re too lazy to change. They’re only pretending to care about their health and the welfare and happiness of their loved ones. What they really want is to die happy and fat, leaving their families to fend for themselves.

They’re despicable.

If they can’t face the hard truth in this Senatorial election, then I will continue to call AZ a blue state. So will a lot of others. Of course, there are some real conservatives there. Senator Pearce, author of SB 1070, is endorsing JD.

GOP doesn’t automatically mean conservative any more, not by a long shot. And a state that calls itself conservative but votes RINO consistently is just throwing the bull.

And now have a look at what is happening to Arizona’s border region thanks to pro-amnesty activists like John McCain working hard against the will of the people for many many years. It’s sickening, but you know you asked for it, Arizona:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/tc-off-topic/2010/08/20/living-on-the-border-a-look-at-life-in-my-neck-of-the-woods/

Are McCain and Hayworth both equally flawed?

by Don Hank

A recent article by Jesse Mathewson tried to show that maybe McCain and Hayworth are both wrong for Arizona. He’s right about McCain. But he uses a now largely discounted scandal and an obscure vote on Singapore free trade to cast doubt on Hayworth.

Now in all fairness, Jesse has written a fair number of articles with genuinely conservative content. However, he has consistently supported Jim Deakin, whose chances to defeat McCain seem remote, while Hayworth is fairly well — if precariously — positioned.

Further, Mathewson’s attempt to equate John McCain and J.D. Hayworth is definitely skewed if you consider the ratings of Hayworth and McCain given by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2005, for example, ACU assigned a grade of 65 to McCain and 100 to Hayworth.

In 2006, it was 80 to 100 in favor of Hayworth.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a college admissions officer considering 2 students and one had McCain’s near-failing to lackluster grades and the other had Hayworth’s top notch grades, I would choose Hayworth in a heartbeat.

Of course, there is this other guy Deakin, who may be ok. But how can we know at this late date? By what he says he’ll do? Remember how Obama sweet-talked us? Are you ready to vote for an unknown when you have a hard-working tried and proven A student waiting in the wings?

JD Hayworth obviates all other alternatives this year. After all, given the state of the polls today, a vote for Deakin is probably a vote for John McCain and we can’t afford another 6 years of waffling and pandering to illegal aliens.

On the other hand, Deakin has a chance to show Arizonans he has real character. By throwing his weight toward JD Hayworth, should he decide to do so, and ridding America of a dangerous RINO once and for all. That in itself could be the start of a brilliant political career.

Don Hank

 

Hayworth’s record:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2005/2005House.htm

McCain’s:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2006/2006senate

Candidate backed by Palin and Jan Brewer loses in Georgia:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/immigration-patriot-nathan

This shows that the public is now more discriminating than ever. If Palin and Brewer can’t persuade voters in Georgia, then there must be a good reason.

Could it be that people there know they are just playing politics?

How long will a Palin endorsement be worth anything? How long before it becomes an albatross?

Arizona, are you paying attention?

Did new Al Qaeda leader smuggle dangerous materials across the southern border?

If the below-linked story is true, this happened back when McCain was pushing really hard for amnesty for illegals and was doing his best to keep from building the fence.

Anyone who votes for McCain for Senate is putting this country at risk.

And anyone who votes for a spoiler (anyone other than JD Hayworth) at this late date is in effect voting for John McCain.

Some will say “this sounds personal.” It is personal. I spent many many man hours contacting congress and writing blog after blog during the last amnesty push. Thanks to none other than John McCain.

We won by the skin of our teeth, but McCain left a lasting impression on me as the man who would not listen to the people. I have no faith in him.

http://www.abrieflookattomorrow.com/newslinks/index.php?showtopic=5645

Don Hank