The bank crisis for dummies

By Don Hank

What the below-linked article by Steph Jasky boils down to is that the government is lying to us (some think Bush and Obama both lied – well, maybe they were just naive) about the magnitude of the bank crisis. They also neglected to tell us (because they believed their lying advisors — who were NOT naive) that the banks needed restructuring if we are to ever emerge from this crisis. The banks don’t have the assets to do business as usual and need to shrink in size.

BTW, I am proud to say my part of this column is intentionally written from both a conservative and a progressive viewpoint. It should not be offensive to either group. Or more correctly, it should be equally offensive to both.

To read the article, most readers will need some help with terms that by now, all Americans should know.

QE, Quantitative Easing: I am not an economist, but the definition for dummies is that the government fires up the printing press and prints gobs of money. This has the advantage that they can temporarily hold off the townspeople with the lanterns and pitch forks this way. It has the disadvantage that our money loses its value and inflation gets worse. And then we grab for the pitch forks anyway. (BTW, when you hear a politician talking about quantitative easing, he means “bend over and grab your ankles, Sucker.”)

Structural Deficit: Essentially, this is a deficit in public (government) spending that arises not through cyclical (short-term) events but rather through the implementation of bad spending policies. Unless these policies are changed, it is in fact a permanent deficit. We now have such a deficit and unless someone in power grows the backbone to admit that and rewrite our spending policies accordingly, jobs will keep going away. Why does it take backbone to do that, you ask?

Ok, have you watched the news and seen those rioters in Greece a while back and the ones in France more recently? I wouldn’t want to be in Sarkozy’s shoes right now. The rioters set fire to things and sometimes to people, and break things. They’re mad because the government cut their pensions, salaries, vacations, etc. They thought they were entitled to be paid money that is not there. C’est stupide, non?

FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board. These people write the standards for reporting what banks are making and spending and how much they hold in assets. They are being forced by government to write new standards making bad books look good.

Now you should be intellectually ready to read and understand the below-linked article. If you’re like me, though, you will never be emotionally ready. Reading it can cause anxiety, anger and anguish and may raise your blood pressure. (Where did I put that aspirin?).

On the other hand, if enough of you read it and act upon it, we may eventually stop electing spineless idiots to public offices and start approaching economic issues, such as job creation and capital growth, like adults again. (“Stimulus” is definitely kid stuff. Anyone with 2 eyes can see that by now). In fact, what about this idea: We elect people who have run a business and understand finance?

Having said that, I now turn to my leftwing readers with this caveat:

Just kidding. I know that would never work. We need Chicago style breaka-you-leg gangsters and slick fast-talking politicians steeped in Marxist lore who can tell us about sharing the wealth and make us feel proud to be useful idiots again.

Here’s Steph’s article:

Islamization and Mexicanization — two designs, same architects

By Don Hank

The slow but sure Islamization of Europe, illustrated in the below-linked video, is headed this way. Dearborn Michigan is a showcase example, where Christians are forbidden to hand out tracts in many places where Muslisms would be offended.

Europe and the US are in the same basic set of hands: PLCSDs (progressives/ liberals/ communists/ socialists/ Democrats) who rule the West by controlling the media, education, film and the arts, the universities, much of the political world, etc.

The Fabian socialists started in London in the early 1880s. Karl Marx’s sister was one of them. Their avowed goal: To spread socialism and eliminate Christianity from Western culture.

How are they doing so far?

Their influence spread and spun off other like-minded groups (the Frankfurt School, the UN, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Democrat and Socialist Parties in the US, socialist parties in Europe, Common Purpose in the UK), which spread the virus.

Their goal in Europe is being achieved in part by importing large numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to dilute the already waning Christian influence there. The result is a growing state of anarchy in the street and an untenable, often desperate social situation, for example, in many European schools, where European students are bullied mercilessly by Muslim kids.

On this side of the Atlantic, their goal is being promoted by supranational government schemes like NAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and the Trans-Texas Corridor), all of which aim to obliterate borders toward the short-term goal of achieving an EU-style borderless America with a single central government that dictates to what is left of national governments (to be reduced to puppets that only harmonize central legislation). The longer-term goal is a one-world government such that no nation or region has any significant power over its own destiny.

The huge influx of illegal aliens you see all around you is part of that plan. They are portrayed as victims, ie, the “poor,” in the media but a growing percentage have ties to the cartels that have made life unlivable and short in Mexico. They are creating crime-filled ghettos in our cities in their quest for a “better way of life.”

I guarantee that the useful idiots who lend themselves to the implementation of this scheme to help illegal aliens gain increasing privileges in our nation, including — now — the right to vote in our elections, will some day rue the day they were duped into becoming pawns in this evil game.

Here is a foretaste:

Post left at another LF column by a lady living in Germany:

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for speaking the truth again, Don.

Perhaps I should add that I live in Germany, and we see the encroaching creep of Islamism here without a doubt.

I think of a church in Reutlingen in the south of Germany, who have spoken up against the way the Lutheran Church in the town has (I use the singular intentionally) been in recent, close fellowship with the Turkish nationalistic, fascist youth organisation, the ‘Grey Wolves’, who, any search in Google will show, are murderers and assassins, and with whom even the CIA are linked. The Lutherans had allowed them on to the church board, allowed them access to their premises, church hall, etc, all ‘in the name of dialogue’ with Muslims, in order to help them to integrate into German society.

It beats me that the ‘Pfarrer’ didn’t have the wisdom to find out for himself what sort of people these are, but perhaps he in his mistaken, humanistic, naive way, thought that he could turn them from their Jihadist thinking. If so, then he was wrong. A video was made of a Grey Wolves meeting in the Lutheran church hall, presumably by one of the partaking group, with the Cross and other Christian symbols covered up, showing the Grey Wolves members saluting, (very similar to the Hitler salute, forbidden in Germany). The video was put on You Tube and caused a furore when the local press got hold of it.

The Lutheran church then accused the free church of being religious intolerant fundamentalists, and even said that they had filmed the meeting, which any common logic would make clear, was a ridiculous accusation. They then ostracised, cold-shouldered and slandered the free church. The sad thing is that other churches in town did the same, pandering to the fear of the Grey Wolves, who hold even other Muslims in terror, unwilling to take a stand for the truth. They said that the free church was destroying the town’s ‘Christian unity’. If that’s Christian unity then I’m the Pope.

Ninth Circuit poisoning the well

 Ninth Circuit “legalizes” voter fraud, undermines all authority

by Don Hank

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof.  The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

So if you want to poison the well, be careful where you drink.


Further reading:

European Court imposes immorality on Russia

The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West’s political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow “gay” parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of “human rights” in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians. 

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can’t see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls.  If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of “interdependence” that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism.  However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the “enlightenment” began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the “grassroots homosexuals” defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime’s KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China’s refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren’t afraid of sheep.

copyright© Don Hank, M.A. in Russian Studies

Further reading:

Courageous witness in Brazil

Courageous witness by Chamelly Stephanie

Christian friends, you are not alone in your struggle, no matter where you are. Your brothers and sisters follow the same God and the same Savior.

And, as He said: Narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there are that find it.

A young woman recently contacted Julio Severo’s Portuguese-language blog about her pro-life experience during Brazilian elections. First I need to say I admire and feel a certain solidarity with my courageous Catholic friends in the pro-life movement.

Having said that, let’s look at the question this young woman poses:

How can the Church be silent?

First, on the subject of apostasy, this site has so far focused mostly on the Protestant church, as shown here and here, for example. Apostasy is endemic to Christianity, is predicted in the Bible and is part of the age-old human trait of sin. Now, to answer Chamelly’s question, we must turn our attention to the Catholic church.

I think the big question that Chamelly must come to terms with is: How can the Church endorse or at least tolerate the totalitarian ideology of socialism as it is manifested, for example, in Latin nations like Brazil?

The fact is, for centuries, the Church in Europe was itself a totalitarian entity. For example, it prohibited commoners from reading the Bible on their own. Further, there have been numerous examples of Catholic priests endorsing socialism in Latin America and some Popes (like the pro-Moscow John XIII) have collaborated with totalitarian regimes. Pius XII signed the Reich Concordat with Hitler rather than opposing the Third Reich.

As for the Church’s silent consent to socialism, a little literary history sheds light on that.

In 1516, Thomas More, a prominent and influential English cleric, who became Lord Chancellor in 1529, wrote a novel expounding his philosophy of social and political thought, describing a model of the ideal state he dreamed of and wanted for all of humanity. In it he describes a perfect society in which life is micromanaged — regimented down to the last detail included the clothes one may wear — and wealth is distributed equitably. As in the USSR, travel is restricted and citizens must apply for permission to travel. Those who travel without permission can be sentenced to a lifetime of slavery.

Historian Igor Shafarevich reports on this novel:

And the picture of equality is utterly destroyed when we learn that life… is largely based on slavery. Slaves do all the dirty work.

Describing what happens to rebellious citizens, More writes:

“If even after this treatment [being enslaved] they still rebel and put up resistance, they are slaughtered like wild beasts.”

The title of More’s novel was “Utopia,” and it has served as a general model for most socialist states like the USSR, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Castro’s Cuba and others, which have been responsible for the deaths of over 100 million, not counting the babies slaughtered by abortion in “civilized” countries like the USA and European nations — which would at least double that number.

More ran afoul of the powers that be in England by endorsing the Catholic church and was executed by Henry the 8th’s regime.

So what did the Catholic church do with this man who endorsed totalitarian socialism, slavery and brutal executions of dissidents?

In 1935 they canonized him. He is now a Saint.

This is the apostasy and false Christianity that Jesus warned us about, Chamelly.  We need to follow His commandment:

“come out from among them and be ye separate.” 

Speaking of unlikely Catholics (breaking):

 Don Hank

Translation of Chamelly’s email:

Hi, Julio. How are you?

It is a huge pleasure to speak to you.

I have been following your blog for quite some time, and I feel the same as you do about what is happening in Brazil, namely, the efforts by a group of authoritarian citizens to legalize iniquity in our nation, and the pushing of PLC 122 [hate-crime legislation proposed by members of the leftist PT, or Workers’ Party, of Brazilian President Lula da Silva to muzzle criticism against homosexuality] that impacts our principles or faith.

Last Sunday I made a silent protest, when I went to the ballot box in the morning. All day long I wore a t-shirt, which is my way to warn about the threat that is called PT. The incredible thing is that I had already paid to a printing shop in Taquara-JPA, here in Rio de Janeiro, for my order to print the shirts with some slogans, but when I went to get them October 2, the employee said that his shop could not make the printed T-shirts. Why? Just because of political issues! So I decided to make them myself by hand.

I went to vote, and an election official at the voting place tried to prevent me from wearing my shirt, without realizing that on election day I was in fact entitled to make a silent protest under Brazilian Law 9.504/97. Of course, I exercised my right and I voted, wearing my T-shirt “ABORTO NÃO, PT NÃO” (No abortion, no PT), because today I have free speech, am not muzzled and do not live in a dictatorship. But for how long?

That same Sunday morning, I went to the church I attend, and a leader asked me to put on a jacket, because that day was an election day and the message on my shirt was very strong. This individual said that “it could get him in trouble later.” Believe me, the worst thing that can happen is not to be judged in the streets; it is be crucified within the church, which actually should warn its members about what is happening backstage in the Congress and Senate — that everybody there is not as beautiful as they appear.

How long will the church remain silent, without opposing what is happening in Brazil?

I am proud to be able to read your blog revealing truths, and to see your courage. I am proud to see Rev. Silas Malafaia attracting an outdoor crowd 600 strong in Rio de Janeiro to defend human procreation, to see such an important leader as Rev. Paschoal Piragine putting on YouTube a video warning the church of the major problems that occur when you elect a PT member again.

If one cannot speak about political issues within the church, then why do Brazilian churches distribute voter info and suggest candidates to vote for? Such hypocrisy! Why does the church have such fear of being judged, of being crucified by the media? Isn’t this the same church that says it was crucified with Christ? I do not care about the things they say, or whether they throw stones, or if the church I attend has a big name. I am not going to cover my eyes and later, when our Bible is banned from distribution, cry out “Oh, it’s so hard to follow Jesus!”

I want to see how the Church of Christ will behave when things get really hard.

What I have decided to do amounts to the silent shout of an individual that is disgusted when learning of PNDH-3 and PLC 122/06. This is an effort — who knows? — to change, personal views of people blinded by the fantasy and manipulation of Globo Network, by the Workers’s Party and others, into a reflection on the number of murders of our children and the homosexual dictatorship that will take place if these follies are established in Brazil.

I decided that, until October 31, I will wear no other shirts but these, to reach the largest number of people. I am tired of not seeing anyone doing anything, of seeing the Church silent in the face of these follies. Whether I am judged or not, crucified or not (I have already been crucified with Christ on the cross of Calvary), I am going to defend my faith and the Word that is my guide. I fear the Lord, not people. This world has nothing to offer us. They want to make sport of God’s Word, family, children and all things perfect that God dreamed of for man. The time has come for God’s people to say NO to all of this. I have courage, and by faith I am going to do that which gives me peace, in spite of the world.

God gave us a Spirit of courage, not fear!

A big hug to you and may God give us strength to keep up this magnificent work.

May Jesus bless you.


Chamelly Stephanie

Translated by Julio Severo. Translation edited by Don Hank

Original Portuguese language blog here :

China sullies Obama at election time

By Don Hank

Chinese leader Wen Jiaobao went to the EU-China summit a few days ago and told the EU he won’t revalue the renminbi upward, and that they should stop “pressurising” China to do so. He said the problem with the euro is the fluctuation of the dollar. That would put the ball in Obama’s court.

To drive home Wen’s point that China won’t take orders, the Chinese leadership recently blanked out all cyber searches in China pertaining to the Nobel prize, which went to a jailed Chinese dissident. And it wasn’t just mention of the dissident that they blanked out. It was the search term “Nobel.” To make sure people paid attention, they threatened sanctions against Norway for its role in the decision, even though the Norwegian government has no known hand in the decision to award the prize.

So why so many slaps in Western faces all at once? If you read between the lines, there really was one main target face, and that was Barack Obama’s.

You may recall that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Obama had to track down his Chinese counterpart, who was deliberately snubbing him. This, coupled with China’s past warning regarding the adverse effects of Obama’s stimulus spending, and now this Chinese stance toward Brussels and Norway, should tell you something.

The Chinese leadership is not just rejecting the West’s praise for one of its dissidents. Much more significantly than that, it is showing its contempt for the arrogant group that granted the unknown Marxist upstart Barack Obama a Nobel Prize but was at a loss to explain why it had done so. Coincidence or not, this indirect but transparent sullying of Obama comes right around election time when Americans are looking to a dazed Obama (who has lost a significant amount of both popularity and cabinet members) for a sign that he can lead.

As I pointed out here, the Chinese leaders have moved safely beyond Marxism, having (barely) survived the murderous ravages of Marxist true-believer Mao. The fact that Obama is enamored of Maoist schemes is almost certainly not lost on them. Yes, technically, they are communists, and Mao is still celebrated, mostly for the sake of his useful idiot followers, but that’s as far as it goes.

This anti-Mao sentiment in the leadership is no secret. As soon as Mao died, Deng Xioaping’s government reversed Mao’s virulent anti-capitalist stance and propagated the slogan “to get rich is glorious.” It even tolerated films critical of Mao’s leadership. (Probably the most powerful and best-made of these is “To Live,” which you can rent from Blockbuster or buy, for example, from Amazon).

The Chinese leadership knows that a man holding the office of President of the United States has no business honoring their disgraced past leader. On a visceral level, I believe they cannot help but resent Obama for admiring the man who almost destroyed their country, and their actions so far have not dissuaded me of this conviction. To the contrary, the Chinese leaders are showing for Obama the same contempt he showed for the Israeli Prime Minister. Politics is, after all, personal, despite the lofty pronouncements of its practitioners. But on a purely pragmatic level, they must be anxious to have Obama replaced by a president less intent on weakening America’s economy through astronomical borrowing and spending – a president who will strengthen their most important trading partner (what can they sell to a poor country?).

The Chinese contempt of Obama is ignored by the power elite in the West because it is not compatible with their diplomatic philosophy, and they are clearly in denial.

Western elites have taught for many years that government should always speak easy and carry no stick but Chamberlain-like appeasement and dhimmitude.

Hence, the US and the EU have, in recent years, trodden easy with China, careful never to rile her leadership.

Obama, while pretty much sticking to this elitist playbook, has departed from it in his China encounters, flush with a false sense of power throughout the West. For example, in February 2010 he blustered that he would get much tougher with China. After all, he is the most powerful man in the world, right? He was cheered like a conqueror in Europe during his campaign. He commanded the attention of the entire Western ruling class, even winning a Nobel without lifting a finger. Can’t the Chinese also plainly see that Obama was a god?

Just as liberal leftists truly believe in Keynesian economics (what Reagan called “voodoo economics” – namely, the doctrine that government can spend itself out of an economic crisis), they just as devoutly believe that anything can be accomplished at the bargaining table that was once won on the battle field, particularly when one is surrounded by a large alliance when facing down a foe.

Thus the reigning principle in Western statesmanship is “strength in numbers” – i.e., the notion that supranational groups like the UN and the EU combine enough synergism and population volume that no single country can resist their efforts.

What they have forgotten is the overriding principle that, all things being equal, there is more power in patriotism, national pride and admiration for a wise and skillful nationalist leader than in a soulless, cultureless union of dissimilar states held together at the top by power lust and self-interest but dangling loose at the bottom, particularly when the leaders of these allied states have intentionally waged a years-long culture war against their own increasingly resentful people.

There comes a point at which people have been so indoctrinated with anti-patriotic propaganda that they ask themselves: Who cares if my side wins? 

That point is now in Europe and soon in America.

Napoleon demonstrated this principle at Austerlitz when, with 70,000 men, he defeated the 90,000 man strong combined forces of 2 Empires, Russia and Austria – and then turned around and defeated the Prussians just to show who was boss.

It will always be this way. Some nations rule, others lose, and when national pride and the will to triumph meet an alliance of forces dissimilar in culture, tongues, and religions, and a vanishing sense of what they stand for, the multicultural alliance had better tread carefully.

There may be strength in numbers, but, as China is teaching us, there is only weakness in diversity.

Further reading:

Teen suicide and homosexuality

This “gay” web site:

shows that suicides among “gays” and the “transgendered” can easily happen in a “safe” environment, due to internal problems faced by these people.

Yet, with knew-jerk regularity, the mainstream media focus on the fact that these kids who kill themselves at some time or other had contact with people who did not approve of their lifestyle. Gee, that means people who read the Bible are mean ogres, doesn’t it? (Funny how these same people screaming for “safety” for gays also seem to sympathize with Islam, whose adherents in some countries execute homosexuals).

Laurie Higgins, in the following column, helps us sort this out.



Teen Suicide and Homosexuality

By Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s DSA –Illinois Family Institute
The past year has seen the tragic suicides of five young men who identified as homosexual or who were taunted with homosexual epithets. I shouldn’t need to say this, but no one should be harassed or bullied — ever. Children should report bullying to their parents and school authorities; bullying policies should be strictly enforced; and if those who bully continue to bully despite disciplinary measures, they should be removed from schools.

As of the writing of this article, the circumstances surrounding the suicide of one of these young men, Raymond Chase, are still unknown. This account from The Daily Beast, however, seems to contradict the narrative that homosexualists like to spin:

Chase did not seem to struggle with his gay identity — he was out to his friends and family, and to a much larger and accepting social circle. [Ivonne] White (Chase’s best friend) described him as the life of the party, loved by many and hated by none; “Straight guys fist-bumped him. Everyone just wanted to be around him,” she said.

“This is something I want to say to everyone about Ray: He was never, ever bullied, and nobody was ever mean to him,” said White, who thinks Chase could have been a comedian he was so funny. Some of the world’s most beloved comedians, of course, are famous for concealing pain and depression with the Teflon of good humor.

White speculates that her friend might have been upset over a crush he had on a straight boy, a good friend, to whom Chase confessed his affection this summer. Though any romantic feelings were unrequited, the crush treated Chase with utter dignity and respect, before and after the admission. Still, Chase seemed haunted by his feelings, staying up until 4 a.m. the night before his suicide to talk to his roommate about that crush.

The most recent suicide took place at Rutgers University — not known as a bastion of conservatism — where freshman Tyler Clementi was secretly taped engaging in a homosexual act. The video was streamed live on the Internet and the public humiliation proved too much for Tyler: he leaped to his death off the George Washington Bridge.

Despite what homosexualists immediately pronounced, there is no indication that the taping was motivated by anti-homosexual animus. It seems at least possible that the students who engaged in this unconscionable act would have done likewise even if it had been a heterosexual act.

This heartrending tragedy raises many thorny issues that will not likely be addressed or addressed properly by the mainstream media:

—  Perhaps it wasn’t the moral views about homosexuality of the students who filmed Tyler that were the problem, but rather that they have grown up in an invasive, obscene culture that has turned sexuality into a public spectator sport and kids into exhibitionists. Just look at the television shows and films that our children watch and the photos that teens post on their Facebook pages to understand better how they view sexuality and modesty.

—  Perhaps Tyler felt justifiable shame for both engaging in a shameful act and then having this act made public — and was offered no help in dealing with his impulses, his actions, or his shame. Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias argues persuasively that a society that no longer feels shame is doomed. The question is not whether shame is good and necessary for quite obviously it is both. The question is, for which actions should we feel shame.

—  Perhaps if Tyler had not been taught the bleakly deterministic view that he was “born” homosexual, he would have had more hope for the future and would have been more likely to resist homosexual temptation.

—  Perhaps if the culture had not filled Tyler’s head with titillating homosexual images and fallacious ideas, his conscience would have been stronger than his impulses.

—  Perhaps if university life were not so decadent and hedonistic, students would not be engaging in sexual acts — heterosexual or homosexual — with the ease and frequency with which they do.

Read more.

A physician’s take on American dhimmitude

A Conversion of Convenience
by Albert W. Loescher, MD, retired
I cannot erase my memories of the Lucasville prison riot 16 years ago–the carnage of twisted bodies in the yard, obsequious officials granting outrageous demands from a dark ‘cleric’ wrapped in flowing white Arabic attire, and my righteous indignation and disgust for the ignorance of those in charge caught off guard. Most of all, I remember my angered exclamation: “It’s a conversion of convenience, stupid! If you give in to them now, you’ll give ‘em more later!” Ohio DOC caved and its gift keeps on giving.
Between 1996 and and 2002, I was associated cheek-by-jowl with the beneficiaries of that pandering palaver and was appalled at the advancement of their agenda . During my tenure as a ‘medical director’ for two prison infirmaries in Ohio, I saw the arrogance of self aggrandizement among the inmates who adopted the ‘peaceful religion’ of militant Islam.* I wondered if their zeal for Allah would continue after they went back to the streets.
In 2005, I sent a long letter to my congressman warning of many potential threats to our republic. Paramount was my concern of imminent danger pertinent to the subject broached above. Two years later, DHS began profiling imprisoned Islamic converts. The recent apprehension in New York is but a tiny tip of the ice floe poised to send this nation to Poseidon’s realm. The entity occupying the offal (sic) office is about to usher in that threat to every home in America–and The One doesn’t give a damn!
He is an inveterate narcissist. Since childhood, his enablers have pampered him with constant praise and endless presents to feed his fragile facade. He is a natural with choreographed draws and feints on the court of political basketball. Against public outcry, his latest trick is to purge Gitmo of our unabashed enemies. His ukase is not for humane compassion. His motivation is to garner adulation from the sycophants of the Euro massif, whose affectation is the fascination with the drama of a tragic Shakespearian heroic victim on the world’s stage, upon which he is its insouciant pawn and harlequin fool for the puppeteers who yank his strings. By hook or crook, the usurper man will have his way again. His regime will orchestrate the inmate transfer soon. The enemies, ready within our gates, will try to spring their fellow felons from whatever super-max of their incarceration. Should they fail, they will nonetheless be victorious, for the virulent seeds will have been sown by the benighted checkered chameleon-in-thief of the blight house. More Lucasvilles, or worse, will doubtlessly follow. Rham will again whisper into Big O’s ear, ‘Never let a crisis go to waste.’ He may add, ‘You can always rely on that bone headed decision caveat if the petard blows up in your face.’ The crisis will be civic insurrection and EO 12919 its remedy. Then will arrive the march toward the final dissolution and consummation of the New World Order. Or will it be a new world odor from millions of rotting corpses without enough mortuaries and real estate available to inter them?


*Book title, 1979

Two fronts of your most crucial war

The two fronts of your most crucial war

By Don Hank

We Americans are at war and although we are often bombarded with the idea that our enemy is politicians, the real enemy is ignorance. Thus, each of us must wage this war with all our heart and soul on two fronts. On one front, the target is each other. In the other, it is ourselves. For example, in the case of Don Hank, the targets are:

1—my own ignorance (including biases that interfere with my own objectivity).

2—my neighbors’ ignorance (including biases that interfere with their objectivity).

Each front is equally important. I can’t fight the war on my readers’ ignorance unless I can come to grips with my own ignorance. So my foremost and biggest job is to defeat my own ignorance.

But why does the war on ignorance matter?

Because America – and the rest of the world – cannot get out of this economic and political crisis without knowledge. By that I mean, the conviction that the “economists” and the politicians they control, who got us into this mess, cannot — and don’t want to — get us out of it.

If America had done its homework, combating its own ignorance and ideological prejudices, not one of the scoundrels like Barney Frank who engineered the housing crisis would ever have been elected in the first place.

America cannot regain a degree of freedom by ignoring readable, layperson-accessible analyses by those who have done their homework and know how the crisis started and why, and who in Washington and Wall Street was responsible.

Readers who are still confused about the how, who and why of our life-threatening economic crisis need to catch up quickly before it is too late. The wolf is at the door and we can’t afford to get it wrong again.

As evidenced by their support for bailouts, both Bush and Obama subscribe to Keynesianism to some extent, and America is going broke as a result. Therefore, just voting Republican cannot save us. There are Republicans who get it, but probably just as many who don’t, or worse, will not vote their principles.

I have an acquaintance who teaches economics and believes – or rather believed — in Keynesian economics, or essentially what Reagan called voodoo economics. The cult’s founder John Maynard Keynes once famously said that if the government hired workers to dig a ditch and fill it back up, that would stimulate the economy. That’s how smart he was, and that is how smart Obama is, whom Rush has correctly identified as a “moron, economically” (true, Obama intends to bring down America, but the unemployment rate is too high to cover up or frame as a Bush hangover and that is causing people to trust Republicans more in economic affairs. Obama truly believes that spending more of your money will help. He had not immediately spent that TARP money, hoping to invest it around election time. But the voodoo is not working).

My economist acquaintance would usually try to rebut articles written by conservative / classic liberal economists and published at Laigle’s Forum. One of her main arguments was that the issues were too complex for normal people to grasp, that she had worked for years as a market broker and was an insider so she just knew things that mortals like me could not. In other words, she proffered the same sleight of hand, devoid of clarifying details, resorted to by Bernanke and his cronies in their plea for bailout money. But I always had a counter-rebuttal that she could not respond to, because no amount of insider savoir-faire is a fair substitute for common sense and facts. She no longer rebuts, so she may have gotten awake. After all, the current situation can certainly wake up the most Keynesian among us.

The Keynesians look back at FDR, a Keynesian president, and claim he “got us out of the depression.” In fact, an analysis by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, replete with painstakingly gathered data, shows that FDR’s policies prolonged the depression by 7-8 years. Many other economists agree. The fact that there is still any debate over this at all is a tribute to the hard work of academics who worship FDR as an economic shaman and roundly reject common sense.

So how can America get up to speed on a crisis that threatens our very existence, our money and our jobs?

You need to read sound analyses. It’s hard work, but you’re an American and you know that hard work is why we are great.

I haven’t seen better readable analyses of our economic crisis than the ones by Steph Jasky of FedUpUSA. Steph is one of the few bloggers who do their homework and know whereof they write and speak. Like me, she and her family were personally affected by the housing crash and wanted to know the identity of the monster that ate their investment. After arduous research, she succeeded in identifying that many-headed shape-shifting monster and is still working hard to inform you and me about its ongoing misdeeds.

I strongly recommend you subscribe to Steph’s newsletter and scan her site. Here is the latest column you can’t afford to miss:

Just trash the dollar and it’s good (this column is full of charts compiled by Wall Street itself)

Chart is the SPX, white line is the dollar by comparison.  That’s where the ramp the last month has come from.  That’s an OVERT currency devaluation – 7%.

And what’s the SPX change?  About 10%.

Oil?  Oh, it’s up 17%.  Hope you like much more expensive gas and…. this winter…. heating oil.

Read more.

Other sites can also be helpful, even some of the ones trying to sell you their services and products. Because they can only sell if they can demonstrate to you, through cogent arguments and analysis, that they know a lot about the economy and keep abreast of economic affairs.

One such site is Taipan Publishing Group, which features, for example, the following vital and informative piece:

Massive foreclosure errors will collapse the housing market (again)

The worst excesses of the housing market bubble and bust are coming back to haunt us. Now is the time to prepare for another home price collapse, with fresh rounds of “quantitative easing” sure to follow.

It would be hilarious were it not so tragic. Come to think of it, it’s hilarious anyway. The country has not yet paid for the idiotic shenanigans of the late great housing market bubble. The latest debacle virtually ensures that the U.S. housing market will collapse.

“Wait a minute,” you may ask. “Hasn’t the housing market ALREADY collapsed?”

Well, yes. But the collapse isn’t over yet. There is another implosion coming – a crushing leg down that will pulverize all hopes of recovery into talcum powder. And another tidal wave of public outrage will likely come with it… all thanks to our wonderful friends in Washington and on Wall Street.

I wish I were exaggerating here, but I’m not. We have flat-out Disaster coming with a capital “D.” Follow along and you’ll understand why.

To first set the stage, let’s briefly cycle back in time to the glory days of the housing bubble…

Read more.

Friends, the information America needs to pull out of this economic crisis – caused by dangerous politicians from both sides of the aisle that you never should have voted for – is all available for free (although I do recommend you push the Donate button at FedUpUSA if you can afford to).

Need I say more?

Further reading on the economic crisis:

Just as you thought the DOJ couldn’t get more anti-American

Obama is probably the only White House resident we have ever had who has not made a gesture toward the grassroots in a major election cycle. His Department of Justice is reeling with a major direct hit from insider testimonies giving solid evidence that there is a racist policy in place whereby minority members indicted for crimes are getting off the hook just because of an accident of birth.

Well, even as Democrats in the Senate and Congress are starting to treat Obama like a leper and politely declining his endorsement for re-election, what does he do but turn around and stick his thumb in America’s eye by turning  a known Islamic terrorist back onto our streets (see article below).

What do you suppose would make someone behave like that who has so much to lose? I mean, all Americans who have ever contacted the White House for any reason are now receiving emails from people like Michelle Obama, for example, begging for money (she wants $3 from each of us) because, as she confesses, the White House understands the Democrats are in hot water.

Yet, the man who many call president keeps shirking his Constitutional duty.

My theory? I am sticking by Rush on this. I think Obama is a moron. But more than that, he is a vindictive moron. In spite of the tepid turnout of the One Nation rally last week, which any reasonable man would have taken as a wakeup call, he is convinced that Joe Sixpack loves him and will cheer him on as he makes America less safe.

Because down inside, we ALL hate our country as much as he does and we all realize that religion-clinging and gun-clinging hicks like us deserve to be car-bombed.

Good luck with that, Barack.

Footnote: I know that someone will remind me that Rush was saying Obama was only a moron economically. True enough. But he must also be a moron politically to behave so recklessly around election time. Does he think we are… Morons? Yes, I guess he does. But in addition, he is a Constitutional moron. Our Constitution does not give any official of the judiciary or other branch the right to drop the charges because someone belongs to a downtrodden or unpopular group. So how many morons is that now? Economic moron, Constitutional moron, and political moron. Please note I did not say he was a moron in all areas. I would never think of saying that.

DOJ Drops Charges Against Indicted Islamic Terrorist

By Judicial Watch Blog    Created 1 Oct 2010 – 11:05am

 In a stunning reversal, the Obama Justice Department has asked a judge to drop charges against a suspected Middle Eastern terrorist considered so dangerous by the government that prosecutors fought to deny him bail [1] after his indictment last year.

Suddenly, this week, the feds want the case dismissed against the Afghan-born man (Ahmadullah Sais Niazi) who authorities say planned to blow up buildings and refers to Osama fin Laden as “an angel.” Niazi, who lives in southern California, is also the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s body guard.

Last year he was charged with lying about his ties to terrorists in a bid to fraudulently obtain a United States passport. The FBI had been watching Niazi for years and a federal grand jury returned a five-count indictment [2] last February. Niazi hid associations with “Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” groups including Al Qaeda, Hizb-i-Islami and the Taliban when he completed nationalization papers, according to the indictment. During one visit to Pakistan Niazi visited Dr. Amin al-Haq, the security coordinator for Osama bin Laden.

Charges against Niazi include perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud and making a false statement to a federal agency. He faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in federal prison and a $1.25-million fine. His trial, which has been postponed several times, is scheduled for November if the judge doesn’t grant the government’s request.

In its motion to dismiss the indictment against Niazi, the Justice Department claims that a key overseas witness was suddenly unavailable to testify. Additionally, “evidentiary issues” [3] have also arisen since the grand jury returned the indictment, the federal motion says. So, the government is seeking to dismiss the indictment in the “interest of justice.”

Prosecutors have refused to further explain the mysterious about face, but the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, has taken much of the credit. In a statement [4] praising the government’s motion, CAIR points out that its request to investigate the “FBI’s coercive and unlawful tactics” in Niazi’s case ultimately led the Justice Department to drop all charges.