You know what? I don’t care. We are here to tell it as it is, no holds barred.

You know what worries me about this ElDorado case in Texas? I am certain, 100% sure, that it is a foot in the door for legalized polygamy and adult-child  sex! This is where the FLDS is taking my country. By themselves, they couldn’t do it. But liberals like the idea of unlimited sexual freedom, and when it comes to this issue, child protection suddenly is not very important.  They would love to add Mormons to their growing list of “victim” groups to “protect” by making you more vulnerable. Like they “protect” homosexuals by making it almost impossible for anyone to mention the extreme dangers of “gay” sex.

I don’t think you could be happy with the prospects of living in a country where your children had no legal protection from sexual predators, and I sure as heck am not. I do not want to live in a country modeled after the FLDS practices and doctrines. But wait: did you know that mainstream Mormon has not fully condemned polygamy? For their leadership, the only reason for abstaining from the practice is the fact that the authorities have banned it. What other beliefs are they hiding behind the clerical veil?

For the reasons enumerated above, I have decided to run what is probably he most controversial column ever to appear at Laigle’s Forum.

Quote:

Tell the Texas Governor in your own words how you support indictments for the criminal behaviors for the FLDS ElDorado, TX Case.  Ask him to inform of any other official office for you to voice your opinion about this, how to inform the Grand Jury process. 

See the information about the Governor’s mansion burning down two days before the children were returned to YFZ and express your concern. 

Texas governor Perry’s phone lines:

       Citizen’s Assistance Hotline: (800) 843-5789
[for Texas callers]

       Citizen’s Opinion Hotline: (800) 252-9600
[for Texas callers]

       Citizen’s Assistance andOpinion Hotline: (512) 463-1782
[for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers]

       Office of the Governor Main Switchboard: (512) 463-2000
[office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST]

       Citizen’s Assistance Telecommunications Device
If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), call 711 to reach Relay Texas

Donald Hank

 Is Mormon a cult?

By Marilyn Ann Stacy

The tradition of Judeo-Christian religion recognizes the Supreme Being as creating all, being ever present and continuing his creation.   Psalms 119:89, “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven,”  is explained  in The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, by Rabbi Michael L. Munk:  “God’s utterance that created heaven also created everything associated with it…..God’s original Ten Utterances are repeated constantly in the sense that the Divine will of the original six days remains in force.  Otherwise, everything would revert to the nothingness of before Creation.”  We were given words to live by.  We develop a relationship with our Creator to serve our purpose in this life.  Added to that tradition is the Son of our Creator.   Relying on the words of human beings motivated by selfish desires to direct worship makes a religion a cult. 

Another mark of a cult is their challenge to revered religions through mind control techniques of the cult’s invention.  A trusted evangelical source, the Index of Cults and Religions, at Watchman Fellowship online, explains mind control of this kind.

Evidence of secular influences further separates cults from bona fide religion. Looking through the Book of Mormon (BOM), by Joseph Smith, we see evidence of secular influences. A story about Golden Plates, for example, was written at the time of Gold Rush.  Further, Mormon community Governance includes an interesting version of Communism from BOM (D&C 121:39), where a statement has similarities to those of anarchist Bakunin.  Joseph Smith includes aspects of Swedenborg’s philosophy.  Like Mohammed, Smith feigns authenticity with borrowed stories from Jewish traditions but clearly distorts them to fit his unsavory agenda (BTW, have you noticed the multiple similarities between Mormon and Islam?).   The BOM was rewritten in 1978 to eliminate references to Smith’s racism toward people of color.  If inspired from above, the BOM racism would not have been there in the first place.  Unlike the Bible, which for millennia, displayed the internal consistency expected of an authentic inspired religious canon, the famous dreams of Joseph Smith and Mohammed were not prefaced by history.  Further, their moral trend of licentious polygamy casts doubt on their authenticity as inspired writings.

The FLDS (Fundamental Latter Day Saints) court case focuses on prosecuting criminal activities set forth in D&C (Doctrines and Covenants) of the BOM (Book of Mormon) 132: 61, known as the Plurality of Wives.  The BOM for FLDS and LDS (Church of Latter Day Saints) contains D&C 132:61.  Although this doctrine is openly practiced only by FLDS today, surprisingly, mainstream LDS has never renounced polygamy.  LDS claims to refrain from practice due to government insistence but does practice sealed-forever spiritual marriages in secret or claims to wait to practice them in heaven after death.  The former Mormon kindred spirit (KS) sources explain that polygamy continues in secret via sealed spiritual celestial marriages that are consummated here or in the hereafter. As the KS also explains, Mormons teach that the authorities will have to answer to God for their “sin” of denying them the practice of their religion. Until D&C 132 is removed from the BOM, the doctrines of FLDS and LDS are substantially the same.  Yet, without section 132, there is no basis for the BOM.  To be saved in Mormon depends on the number of progeny produced.  A position paper from Concerned Citizens Growth Ministries states: “What women have to look forward to is eternal pregnancy.”  LDS is a clearly a “Christian” cult.

There is also a resemblance of perverse ideologies, style, personas, vocabularies, and Public Relations techniques between the Left and Mormon.  The sexual assault of underage girls uncovered in the ElDorado case reminds us of the teachings of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).  A child bride’s testimony from a previous 2006 Grand Jury reveals:  “We were taught that we would go to hell” for speaking out, she said. “After I got away from that religion, I still felt like I would be damned if I ’spoke out’ because that’s just how I was raised.” The Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steven F. Conn, presiding over the case, summed up the issue: It is whether underage girls are going to be protected by society from engaging in sexual relationships outside of the marital relationship. 

On July 22, 2008, the Grand Jury for the FLDS case regarding the April 3, 2008 raid at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch at Eldorado, Texas, has the opportunity to issue indictments to enforce the law.  There is potential to reverse the moral decline in law that started with Rowe v Wade.  The media does not advise us on religious matters, which they deem outside their purview.  Thus we do not hear about Mormons hiding behind ” religion” to avoid judgment for actual or potential criminal behavior. 

Your voice counts. The law is set up to respond, provide indictments, and to follow through with convictions.  Once the convictions are a reality, we can address our religious leaders on the issue of cults.  For now, we need to focus directly upon obtaining justice through the law, which depends in large part on public support. 

Focus should be on the prosecution of the child abuse crimes:  sexual assault of underage girls, the practice of throwing boys away because they compete with older men for child brides, and the practice of lying to authorities that FLDS calls “bleeding the beast,” which is lying to procure welfare money. 

If you agree that these abuses cannot stand, demand that the court of Texas secure the indictments.  The available briefs of this case make it apparent that Judge Barbara Walther should receive supportive input from the public.

Texas Governor Perry’s website is linked at the end of this paragraph.  Although the Governor supported the removal of the children from the YFZ,, not enough public support was shown at his website. The children had to be returned to the abusive ranch where child abuse laws are ignored.

Tell the Texas Governor in your own words how you support indictments for the criminal behaviors for the FLDS ElDorado, TX Case.  Ask him to inform of any other official office for you to voice your opinion about this, and how to inform the Grand Jury process. 

See the information about the Governor’s mansion burning down two days before the children were returned to YFZ and express your concern.  Remember to include this with your message:   If my address is revealed to any party requesting information via the Freedom of Information Act, I require notice. 

Don’t expect a group that considers child abuse as part of their religious creed to play nice!

Related links:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/22/fbi-system.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/22/205017.sh4. 
9/11/1973 Chilean Massacre - Mormon CIA taking over the Jesuits & Catholic in South America
http://www.mormon.citymax.com/MittMormon.html

 To post a comment from the main page, click on the live-link title at the top. You will see a comment box at the bottom. Comments are moderated. Be polite and add something relevant. If you wish to rebut, focus on showing how you think the writer is wrong and provide details. Thanks!

By Donald Hank

 The Madwoman: What are they looking for? Did they lose something?

Pierre: They’re looking for oil.

The Madwoman: Strange! What do they want to make with it?

Pierre: The things people make with oil. Misery. War. Ugliness. A miserable world.

These lines are the most frequently quoted by literature critics writing about the famous play “La folle de Chaillot” (The Madwoman of Chaillot), written by Jean Giraudoux in 1944. Since the late 40s the play has been a constant favorite throughout Europe and on college campuses in the US. For example, an early reference to a US production of the play goes back to 1958 (at MIT). In 1969, an English-language adaptation was made into a movie starring Katherine Hepburn. till going strong, it was staged, for example, at Knox College last year and at the Ojai Community Theater in Ventura County, CA, just this year.

In the play, the Madwoman (Countess Aurelia) and her friends, all street people, discover that a group of rich investors have discovered oil under the streets of Paris and have contrived to lay claim to it without the knowledge or consent of the Parisians. In the end, Aurelia and her co-conspirators trick the investors to enter her home as a kind of promotional event.  The investors are then permanently barricaded inside and hence prevented from doing further harm.

The above lines from the play best reflect the Left’s visceral reaction to the oil industry and the attitudes behind their energy hatred.

Proof that the play is still prized as an anti-oil propaganda piece, and not merely as ars gratia artis (art for its own sake), is a review of the above-mentioned recent staging appearing in the Ventura County Star under the title line “Madwoman uses wit to skewer the rich,” in which we read:

Venture capitalists trample over the poor.

Oil fuels war. Greed is good.

Snatched from today’s headlines? Well, maybe, but those themes are also central to “The Madwoman of Chaillot,” Jean Giraudoux’s fanciful satire written in 1944 while his beloved France was under Nazi occupation, then staged a year later after his death at age 62. Giraudoux wrote many colorful and witty works, but “Madwoman” stands out for its wisdom and timeliness, then and now.

Accordingly, for the Left, oil and the greedy oil tycoons are synonymous with misery, war and ugliness, while the energy-hating Left is portrayed as wise and ever timely.  Further, the above-cited trite lines, which we are never allowed to forget, and are touted as “wit,” enshrine the idea of oil as an evil tool in the hands of the rich. It is in large part this irrational perception on the part of madmen, as fancifully reflected by a Parisian playwright in the last century, that today prompts the Left in Congress to reject drilling for oil, building refineries, or making travel affordable in America and elsewhere. As usual, it is the rich snobs of far-left academe and Hollywood who support an idea that ultimately deprives the poor and middle class of a decent standard of living, all the while hypocritically blaming other rich people - those who earn their wealth on the free market - for somehow causing their misery. For them, Giraudoux’s play is a kind of religious canon and as such obviates any further rationale for the ideas it represents. Lucky for them.

Like the Madwoman of Chaillot, today’s Left in Congress, while fueling one economic crisis after another, manage to cast themselves in the role of saviors while making the capitalists who supply us with ever scarcer but desperately needed energy look like villains. A perfect example is the call for greater windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

But are the battle lines for vs against affordable energy really so clearly marked out that we can unequivocally blame the Left for the mess we’re in?

A recent article by Paul Weyrich leaves little doubt that they are.  Quoting figures submitted by Representative Roy Blunt, Weyrich shows, for example, that:

“… for the past 14 years, 91% of House Republicans voted to develop oil at ANWR while 86% of Democrats opposed drilling there…” 

 Other categories from Weyrich’s article:

Coal liquefaction: 78% of Democrats opposed vs 97% of Republicans in favor.

Oil exploration of Outer Continental Shelf: 81% of House Republicans “yes,” 83% of House Democrats “no.”

Increased refinery capacity: 97% of House Republicans “yes,” 96% of House Democrats “no.”

Development of oil and gas reserves: 91% of Republicans “yes,” 86% of Democrats “no.”

By refusing to allow oil drilling in ANWR and off-shore, shale oil exploitation, or construction of nuclear power plants or new refineries, and through various efforts to tax energy, such as proposals to slap “carbon footprint” taxes on frequent flyers and big-car owners, or by intricate schemes of enforced purchase of carbon credits, the Left, in tandem with OPEC, has managed to impoverish the entire world within about the space of a year, severely reducing the size of the middle class everywhere. To add insult to injury, the greens’ insistence on converting corn, sugar cane and other staple crops into fuel (as though the burning of ethanol did not produce CO₂!) has helped create a worldwide crisis in food prices.

None of these untoward side effects of their snake oil remedies faze the Left, who continue to steadfastly blame economic woes on the free-market suppliers of goods rather than on manipulators in government who throttle the trade in those goods by enacting a maze of often contradictory regulations, blocking exploitation of energy sources and imposing new tax burdens on already-dear energy.

As for “The Madwoman of Chaillot,” if an acquaintance should happen to enthusiastically mention having seen this play somewhere, be sure to ask:

Did you ride to the theater on your bike or did you walk?

Reader Hermes de Alzevedo recently suggested I read the following article. When I did I couldn’t help but think of how Bill Clinton shamelessly took credit for reforming welfare, when in fact it was his party that had caused the disaster in the first place and the opposition who forced him to reform it. At no time did any Democrat admit that welfare was a disaster. Instead the emphasis was on how their party had so brilliantly achieved this wonderful victory over the monster that no one dared to say was of their own creation.

As Mr. de Carvalho shows elsewhere, and as Paul Weyrich lately pointed out, the main reason the Left can do its dirty work almost unopposed is the cooperation it receives from mainstream “conservatives.”

The column was written in 2001, but is as timely now as ever.

Remember this quote:

“…but they [the Left] also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.”

I know, folks, it is absurd that any group, especially one this large and powerful and as college “educated,” could actually want to destroy all that is good and decent, and most of you will steadfastly refuse to believe it. Just as Neville Chamberlain and the flower children of his day refused to believe that Hitler could be such a monster.

And by the time they did it was too late.

Donald Hank

 Transfiguring the disaster

OLAVO DE CARVALHO
O Globo, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Every time the Left wants to impose a new item of their program, they say it is the only way to cure certain maladies. Invariably, when the proposition wins out, the maladies it proposed to eliminate become worse. The normal thing to do under such circumstances would be to lay the responsibility for the disaster on the Left. But this never happens, for at once the original legitimizing argument disappears from the repertoire and is substituted by a new system of allegations, which celebrates failure as success or as a historical necessity that could not be avoided.

No one will understand the first thing about the history of the 20th century - or the beginning of the 21st - if they do not know this retroactive justification mechanism by which the Left makes the people work for non-declared goals that would scandalize them if they knew their identity and that can only be reached through the indirect route of dangling the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose.

Some examples will make this clearer.

1) When the Communist Party released its program for the destruction of the “bourgeois” family institutions, laying the groundwork for what would later be “sexual liberation,” its main allegation, elaborated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, was that homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism etc. were fruits of repressive patriarchal education. Once the cause were eliminated, these deviant behaviors would tend to disappear from the social scene. Well, the last remnants of patriarchal values were expelled from western education between the seventies and the eighties, and what did we see right afterwards? The dissemination, on an apocalyptic scale, of the same behaviors they promised to eliminate.  Once the results were obtained, these behaviors started to be celebrated as healthy, honorable and meritorious, and all criticism of them is now frowned upon - sometimes even under penalty of law - as an intolerable abuse and attack against human rights.

2) When the international Left started to fight for the legalization of abortion, one of their main arguments was that the great number of abortions was due to the prohibition thereof, which facilitated the action of charlatans, crooks and all kinds of untrained individuals. Legalization, it was promised, would force the abortion to be performed under medically acceptable conditions, thereby lowering the number of cases. What was the result? In the first year, the number of abortions in the USA went from 100 thousand to 1 million, and it never stopped going up to this day. At least 30 million babies were already sacrificed, while at the same time, the apologists of legalization, instead of admitting the fallacy of their initial argument, now celebrate the fact, working to eliminate and criminalize any criticism of the new state of affairs.

3) When the North-American left devised the policy of quotas and indemnification known as “affirmative action,” they alleged it would diminish crime in the black community. After the new policy was made official, the number of crimes committed by black men against white men arose significantly, according to statistics from the FBI. What did the apostles of this “affirmative action” do then? Did they recognize that to reinforce the feeling of racial identity was to stimulate prejudices and racial conflicts? Nah. They celebrated the increase in hostilities as progress in democracy.

4) When, in an attempt to destroy the North-American tradition of considering education a duty of the community, the churches and the family rather than of the State, the North-American left demanded bureaucratization of teaching, one of its prime arguments was that juvenile delinquency could be controlled only by an educational action of the State. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1980, the USA had for the first time a Department of Education and uniform teaching programs. Two decades later, delinquency among children and adolescents is not only growing much faster than before, but has also adopted the public schools as its headquarters, which have now become danger zones, to the point where, at the beginning of the year, the Mayor’s office in New York was privatizing its schools because of the impossibility of controlling the violence inside them. In answer to that, what did the left do? Did it admit failure? No. It is fighting for State uniformity of teaching on a world level.

5) In Brazil, the only way of lowering violence in the rural areas, so said the Left, was to give land and money to the MST (Movimento Sem Terra, or Landless Movement). Very well, the land was given - it was the greatest distribution of land in all human history, with lots of money behind it. Violence has not lessened: it has increased a lot. Does the Left admit its mistake? No. It organizes violence and celebrates it as the attainment of a new historic stage in the fight for socialism.

The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum - and notice I deliberately avoided mentioning extreme cases that occurred inside socialist countries themselves, such as the collectivization of agriculture in USSR, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cuban Revolution, etc., sticking to facts originating in the capitalist world.

The promise of salvation, transfigured into disaster and followed by a change in the discourse to legitimize it, has been, in sum, the constant and essential modus agendi of the international Left for a century, and we see no sign of any leftist mentor having any conscience problems with this. Au contraire, all of them continue to promise the solution to maladies, while having readied in their portfolios the future legitimization of the enlarged maladies. They promise to lower drug consumption through liberalization, to control corruption through “participative budgeting,” to repress delinquency through the disarming of civilians or through Leninist “alternative law,” which incriminates the social status of the defendant rather than his criminal act. They know perfectly well where this all will take us - but they also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire. 

 Olavo de Carvalho

 Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), July 9^th 2008

             Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin.  The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

            For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience - and with below-minimal political experience - to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

            With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office.  In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?” 

            Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

            Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols - the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed - Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

            Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths.  Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system - which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

            Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it

by Donald Hank

We urge our readers to go to the site linked below and leave a post asking why the members of the airline-supported forum StopOilSpeculationNow are so preoccupied with only one minor aspect of the fuel price crisis, namely, speculation in the prices.

Tell them ending speculation will not help extract desperately needed oil from US territory where it lies going to waste. Tell them it will not help build much-needed domestic refining capacity.

This forum StopOilSpeculationNow is taking the viewpoint that the market must be brought under government control, something the Democrats will agree with, but is ignoring the common sense viewpoint and the facts: nuclear power would conserve fossil fuel by supplanting oil-burning power generation, drilling for oil in US territory and exploiting shale oil deposits would counterbalance the effects of the OPEC monopoly, and building refineries here would make us less dependent on other nations and reduce the price of refined petroleum products. The proposed “carbon footprint” tax would have additional disastrous effects on the airline industry, but their execs ignore this problem.

By pretending that the entire problem is due to a minor factor that requires government control of the economy, StopOilSpeculationNow is clearly playing politics. Indeed the current administration must take much of the blame for the oil crisis, but not so much for its failure to stop speculation but rather because it fails to let the free market sort out the problem free of excessive and often self-contradictory environmental concerns. Indeed, the US, while refusing to exploit off-shore oil on the pretext of environmental concerns, has lodged no protest against foreign oil companies who explore for oil off our shores (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico). In fact, if China succeeds in finding oil there, with its deplorable record on the environment, we are sure to see much more pollution than if US companies had been allowed to exploit these deposits.

Background:

On July 9, 2008, I received a letter from Delta Airlines urging me to join in a political action aimed at motivating Congress to stop oil speculation, which, according to the letter, is driving up the price of oil as much as $30 to $60 a barrel. These figures were supposedly based on analyses by “market experts.”

I was surprised to learn this and am as concerned as the next guy about anything that makes oil more expensive. Nor do I have any sympathy for speculators. If speculation is indeed driving up oil prices as much as $30-60 a barrel, the government may be justified in taking a position on this.

But I was put off by the fact that there was no mention of anything but a regulatory solution to a free market problem, particularly at a time when our government refuses to drill for oil in our territory or build more refineries, and by the lack of supporting details such as the names of the scholars behind the studies showing this and references to them.

I went to the web site linked in the letter www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com and found that almost every major airline was supporting this anti-speculation action.

But I was shocked that not one of the CEOs who had signed the letter was interested in any solution other than adding a new regulation to stop speculation. There was no mention of drilling for US oil or building more refining capacity or lowering energy taxes and opposing the foolish “carbon footprint” taxes that have been proposed. A recent article by Paul Weyrich shows that every avenue for increasing US oil independence has been blocked by Democrats in Congress, whose “no” votes make up as much as 97% of all Democrat votes, whereas the Republican situation is the exact inverse. Further, some oil experts insist that speculation is not really a major culprit.

But besides that, how could the US government stop speculation when much of it is under foreign jurisdiction? Oh, that’s right. We are moving toward a one-world government that can fix everything.

At any rate, all of the above makes me very suspicious about these airline CEOs’ motivation.

It was a surrealistic experience to see the entire air travel industry lined up behind a proposal for more regulation rather than less. It appears, at leasst on the surface, as if the entire industry is in the hands of Democrats who are opposed to a free market solution and who are trying to make free market actors look like the sole cause of our current economic malaise while giving anti-energy politicians a pass. This is not all that surprising when you consider how American Airlines benefitted from millions of dollars in corporate welfare after the 911 attacks.

But add this to the fact that CEOs of major industries like McDonald’s and Ford have foolishly supported gay sex and same sex “marriage,” and it is easy to see that our economy is far from being in the hands of grassroots Americans.

Here is the letter:

Hello Mr. Hank,

Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers.

Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com

By Laurie Higgins

In a recent letter, “Global Chief Diversity Officer,” Pat Harris, wrote that, “McDonald’s is associated with countless local and national affinity groups here in the United States. We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share in the belief that every person has the right to live and work in their community free of discrimination.” What precisely does GCDO Harris mean by claiming that homosexuals have a right to live and work “free from discrimination”? Does he mean that they should be able to live and work without being harassed? If so, we’re in complete agreement. No one should be harassed anywhere anytime.

Or, is he asserting that they have some sort of right to community approval of their sexual practices? If so, from where does that right derive? And is every group that is defined by anomalous sexual desires and practices owed that same right? Will McDonald’s stand in unity with all these “affinity groups”? Will  McDonald’s cheerfully associate with the national affinity group NAMBLA?

What Harris neglected to  articulate is whether McDonald’s believes that community members have the right to discriminate between moral and immoral conduct. Everyone I know believes that those who self-identify as homosexuals have a right to live and work in their communities free from harassment. Everyone I know believes that those who self-identify as homosexuals are equal in dignity and worth to heterosexuals. No one I know hates homosexuals. But many believe that homosexual conduct is immoral.

Just as every human has a right to live and work free from harassment, every human has a right to hold and articulate beliefs about which behaviors, sexual and otherwise, constitute moral behaviors. The most prevalent belief throughout history and in virtually all societies has been and continues to be  that homosexual conduct is profoundly immoral and destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society. McDonald’s can ensure a workplace free from harassment without supporting organizations whose central mission is not to end harassment but to impose radical views of deviant sexual practices on America through demagoguery and censorship.

Kayla, a MacDonald’s Customer Response Center spokesperson, wrote that “it’s important to note that McDonald’s respects and values people. Diversity and inclusion are business imperatives and integral components of McDonald’s culture. We believe that by embracing our differences we are better enabled to value and respect other people as well as understand differing points of view.”

Does McDonald’s “embrace” all differences? Do they embrace the differences that distinguish sadomasochists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and apotemnophiliacs? Do they embrace the differences that distinguish kleptomaniacs, pornographers, and lazy people?

Are they embracing the differences that distinguish the homosexual community, that is to say their homosexual practices? In other words, is McDonald’s embracing their sexual practices and embracing them because of their practices? Will they embrace all diverse sexual practices? One would hope that McDonald’s would serve the needs of their customers irrespective of their behaviors-sexual or otherwise.

Moreover, does McDonald’s embrace the differences that distinguish evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics? If so, how does this embrace manifest? Will McDonald’s affirm the convictions of evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism? In order to honor their commitment to diversity and inclusion, and to better value and respect the differing viewpoints of diverse groups, will McDonald’s embrace the differences that distinguish these groups?

What the “global diversity officers” at McDonald’s don’t seem to grasp is that by embracing the philosophical commitments of the LGBTQ community, they repudiate the philosophical commitments of Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and many Protestants. One would expect that McDonald’s, as a business enterprise, would refrain from taking positions on arguable, divisive cultural issues. The thickheaded diversity officers don’t seem to grasp the simple truism that no individual or organization can embrace mutually opposing principles. It is a logical impossibility. The solution should be obvious: conduct business and leave the transformation of public sentiments on controversial moral issues to others.

As long as McDonald’s affirms the destructive deceit that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality, my family will not be financially supporting McDonald’s.

By the way, someone may want to inform GCDO Harris that diversity simply means variety or multiformity; it does not denote the beatified triumvirate of “race, gender, and sexual orientation.”

Same-Sex “Marriage”: Illegal In All 50 States / Conservative Groups + Pundits Miss The Point Regarding Legality Of Court’s Action

RFFM.org Guest Column by Gregg Jackson *

About a month ago, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, issued a declaratory opinion that Proposition 22, which states that, “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California,” enshrined into statutory law by 61.4% of California voters in 2000 (over four million voters), was “unconstitutional” on the basis that “gender discrimination” violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The LA Times reported:

“The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Sadly, many of the leading “conservative” and “Christian” pro-family organizations such as AFA (American Family Association), Liberty Council, ADF (Alliance Defense Fund), FRC (Family Research Council), ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) and Focus on the Family have been in full surrender mode conceding this same liberal talking point that the court “legalized same-sex marriage in California” and that the only way to ensure preserving traditional male-female marriage is through a state constitutional amendment scheduled to be on the ballot in November.

The California Supreme Court issued a declaratory opinion that, in the view of the bare majority, banning same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional and that the language of the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman must be stricken from the statute. Unfortunately however, the court doesn’t have the constitutional authority to re-write the marriage statute nor any other initiative statute for that matter. According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22. Same-sex “marriage” remains, therefore, illegal.

The court said the plaintiffs were entitled to the issuance of a “writ of mandate” but issued no actual writ to state officials to perform the ministerial act of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Even if they had issued a “mandate,” state officials are sworn to execute the law and not effectuate a court’s opinion. Moreover, any court mandate or “order” would have been both unenforceable and invalid, since, according to a recent California Court of Appeals ruling from April of 2008, Sondermann Ring Partners v. Buenaventura, the court can declare an action of the legislature unconstitutional where such action exceeds the limits of the Constitution, but the courts have no means and no power to avoid non-action. In other words, the court is not constitutionally permitted to enforce its opinion.

Governor Schwarzenegger has fulfilled his promise to “uphold the court ruling” by authorizing changes to the marriage certificates, replacing “husband” and “wife” with “partner A” and “partner B” which is ironic considering that he vetoed a previous attempt by the legislature in 2005 to eliminate gender requirements for marriage which he argued required the assent of the electorate. He has also authorized Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies which began on June 15^th.

But the main question is whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger possesses the constitutional authority to do so.

The governor, according to Article 5 Section 1 of the California Constitution is solely responsible for seeing that “the law is faithfully executed.”

And since all law making powers solely reside with the sovereign people of the state of California and their elected representatives, the Governor is bound to only enforce the laws and statutes which have been enshrined into law via the people (in the case of an initiative statute or constitutional amendment) or their elected representatives, including Prop 22, which has not changed.

According to the California Constitution, only the voters possess the enumerated authority to amend or repeal the marriage statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman (Prop 22). As Judge Baxter wrote in his dissent:

Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision.

Nemo dat quod non habet, (”You cannot give what you do not have.”) In other words, the California Supreme Court cannot give to the Legislature, what neither it, nor the legislature, has: the power to overturn the people’s initiative legislation. No branch of government, even the branch that claims to be the final arbiter of a Constitution can gain legal authority which it does not possess. To claim then “the court legalized same-sex marriage” by “striking down” the people’s initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman has absolutely no constitutional basis.

Governor Schwarzenegger has violated his sworn oath to uphold the California Constitution to only enforce the current laws and statutes of the state of California by illegally authorizing changes [http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65755] to, and issuance of, marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Like former Massachusetts Governor Romney before him, Governor Schwarzenegger has falsely asserted that the court’s opinion, containing no valid or enforceable court order, “legalized same-sex marriage” and that it is his obligation to enforce the “court’s decision.” Romney illegally authorized [http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07] the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” and ordered Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to perform and solemnize same-sex “marriages,” or tender their resignation (which one did), without an accompanying statute approved by the legislature.

Schwarzenegger’s tyrannical actions are straight out of the Romney playbook.

It is no surprise that the vast majority of the leading conservative “pro-family” organizations, lawyers and radio-pundits have been silent about Schwarzenegger’s illegal actions since virtually every one of them from Focus on the Family to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh totally suppressed the truth about Mitt Romney’s virtually identical illegal actions.

Romney, not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, was originally solely responsible for the illegal [http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/] issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. The claim that the “activist” Goodridge Court “legalized gay marriage” is a total lie. The court didn’t even pretend its declaratory opinion on the one individual case before it, could in any way influence the current marriage statute:

“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.” 

In fact, the court admitted that under the marriage statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal:

“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

In California, while the court has claimed that the designation of marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” must be stricken from the statute, it is crucial to reiterate that only the sovereign people of California have the constitutional authority to amend or revoke an initiative statute such as Prop 22.

Since courts lack the authority to enforce their own opinions and cannot make law, they can only be considered “activist” when the executive branch enforces their opinion as if it were the “new law.” While a bare majority of four members of the court no doubt issued an illegal opinion and should be impeached for doing so, Governor Schwarzenegger alone authorized the issuance of the illegally altered marriage certificates. Executive tyranny, not “judicial activism,” is what occurred in California (and Massachusetts).

The bottom line is this: Same-sex “marriage” is not legal anywhere in the United States of America from Massachusetts to California. Now if only somebody would explain this basic legal concept to our superstar “conservative” leaders, lawyers, and radio-pundits who incessantly swear that it is.

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/07/court-did-not-have-power.html

* Gregg Jackson
Co-Host “Pundit Review Radio”
WRKO Boston’s Talk Station www.WRKO.com

Author of “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue By Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z”
www.amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0819165-6065708?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178135052&sr=8-1

www.greggjackson.com

Facebook
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502797320

Townhall.com Columnist http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

Comments to RFFM.org’s blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

By Donald Hank

Change is the hallmark of the revolutionary, and it is not change for the sake of some greater cause. Change is the cause.

When the first red revolutionaries slithered out of the sea, their ideology and agenda revolved around the the worker. The first page of the newspaper Izvestia bore the slogan: Workers of the world unite!

The Left seemed to be about social justice for the worker in his struggle against capitalist injustice.

I say “seemed” because the situation of the worker remained grim throughout Soviet history and the government never tackled this problem in earnest, focusing instead on propaganda painting the West as the author of their ills.

In Soviet publications, gallons of ink were spilled over the plight of the international worker, but the plight of the Soviet worker never changed tangibly since 1917. Soviet workers suffered constant shortages of food and housing. Married couples shared small apartments in the most squalid conditions while the elite partied.

I glimpsed this disparity between attitudes and platitudes while studying at the University of Leningrad in the early 70s with a group of American students. Following our studies, we took a side trip by rail to the Estonian capital of Tallinn.  I sat in a car with our Russian language professor and about a half-dozen other students playing guitar and singing folk songs.

After a while, our tour guide came to the door and invited me to join him in another car with an honored guest who was a Communist party member. You’d have thought party members were in short supply.  I told him I was needed as part of our entertainment. I will never forget his response. Smiling condescendingly, he said “That lady is a mere teacher. You have the opportunity to meet a party member.”

Where was the classless society? If she was a nobody because she was a teacher, what about the factory worker, who was supposed to be united with his international comrades in the glorious future revolution?

I understood at that moment that the “change” the Bolsheviks had wrought was hollow and had been from the beginning. Among themselves, they made no pretense of such idealism. And I suppose they assumed there was no point in pretending in front of me either because, as an American capitalist, I could be assumed to share their disdain for the little guy. The social change, i.e., elimination of class barriers that constituted their platform, was clearly only a pretext for grabbing power from the naive. Now they had it and that was the end of the pretense.

What I am driving at is that the Left does not have a central ideology or platform, as much as they would like you to think they do. They are about destroying the existing order, the status quo, and that is all. Once traditional culture is dismantled, they have accomplished their mission and are done pretending to help people.

Take the example of China’s Chairman Mao and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. These two dictators mouthed the world communist ideology of freeing the worker from oppressive capitalism.

Now, note that both Castro and Mao, like the early Soviet communists, disdained homosexuals. Fidel had them arrested.

Today, however, the Left in Europe, North and South America protects homosexual “rights,” advocating “gay” marriage and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, “protecting” homosexuals against “hate,” particularly on the part of Christian pastors, who have been fined and arrested, even threatened with horrendous jail terms for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. There is no more talk of workers and their rights to enjoy the fruits of their labors, even though workers everywhere have recently lost as much as half their purchasing power in about a year’s time. So has the Left changed its agenda? I rather think it never had one and never will.

Now I have spoken with sincere Christians who have expressed the view that homosexuals are victims, born with a genetic makeup that causes them to desire the same sex, and that denying them “marriage” is sinful. Senator Obama has expressed this belief. “Christian” Leftists like him helped birth this absurd and anti-biblical notion.

But isn’t it curious that, say, Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula, who promote homosexuality  and advocate laws that “protect” them by criminalizing free speech, nonetheless seem ideologically compatible with Fidel Castro, who openly hated homosexuals during most of his career? Where have you heard that Fidel and any other Latin American leftist have ever feuded over this ostensibly so vital issue? Where was the debate between these intimate allies on an issue that is so profoundly important to the Left in Latin America that legislation is written based on the absurdity that “gays” are a victim group threatened with extinction?

Or what about the Left in Canada, where the Human Rights Commission rounds up and arraigns pastors and others who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, rushes to the aid of Muslims, by far the deadliest enemies of homosexuals, whenever anyone  –  especially a Christian, opposes that religion?

Where is “workers of the world unite” when we need it most?

So what do you think? Is the Left really unified behind an ideology or agenda or is it unified behind a distorted view of the world that is independent of ideological content?

Olavo de Carvalho, who has studied leftist thought in greater depth than perhaps any other scholar, showed in a recent lecture (unpublished) that Leftism is not an ideology or agenda, but merely a reversal of common sense, a rejection of things normal and natural that rises to the level of a pathology.

The perceived ideologies or agendas they flaunt are nothing but a means to an end, and that end is the end of civilization.

Once they achieve the power they crave, they will no more aid homosexuals or minorities than they now aid the long-forgotten worker.

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com

The story below gives the lie to the politically correct idea that history shows a progressive move toward increasing freedom – an idea that was first put forth by Marxist Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce, touted by academics as “one of the greatest thinkers of our time.”

For the politically correct, that is for elitist leftist revolutionaries (mostly atheists) and the “useful idiots” who run along with them without having the slightest idea where their revolution is headed, freedom is on the increase. But freedom is only on the increase for these elitists, who now are in the final stages of taking over our planet. It is on the decrease, for example, for conservative Christians (I am not referring to redefined conservatives, of course, who are nothing but traitors and followers of Satan) and for adherents to common sense notions and principles. There are precious few left in our country who will stand up against the despotism described below. What the rest don’t realize is that the pogrom against traditional Christians is only the first step in the war against all common sense, including the notion of traditional family where parents still have rights over their children’s upbringing, where you have the right to buy gas to go to work, or, eventually, the right to a job or the right to life itself.

The loss of religious freedom is the beginning of the loss of all freedoms.

Wait and see.

Or better yet, don’t wait. Fight.

Donald Hank

Appeal filed in Liberty Bell case

Pastor Marcavage “guilty” for witnessing near Liberty Bell

Appealed to US District Court

 Watch the video of the arrest. 

U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis has been assigned to hear the appeal, and a conference has been requested by Marcavage’s legal counsel, C. Scott Shields, to discuss a stay of the imposition of the sentence pending the appeal.

“In a land that tolerates the killing of unborn children, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a continual battle for our freedoms. When the church is silent as the most helpless among us have their beating hearts stopped at the hands of abortionists, then we do not deserve liberty,” Marcavage stated. “Although we do not deserve the blessings of liberty that God has bestowed upon our nation, we must be good stewards by working to preserve and utilize them to help bring an end to the abortion holocaust,” Marcavage continued. “In Philadelphia - the birthplace of American freedom - we will, as the Scripture-inscribed Liberty Bell declares, ‘Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof’ (Leviticus 25:10) regardless of the efforts to silence us,” Marcavage concluded.

__

Take Action: (1) Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to be a voice against this injustice and the ban on freedom of religion and speech on the public sidewalks at Independence National Historical Park. You may do so by clicking here. (2) Forward this news release by clicking here, so that your family and friends can do the same. (3) Click here to make a donation to support the work of this ministry and the appeal in this case. Your support is much needed and appreciated and will help to ensure that our rights to speak the Gospel publicly are upheld.

Upstate South Carolina rid itself of the Hillary Clinton of pennyante southern politics tonight, as Wendy Nanney withstood a remarkable onslaught of lies and misrepresentations from the Gloria Arias Haskins camp (as reported here) to defeat the open borders, voting privileges-for-illegals incumbent in the state House of Representatives, District 22 race (congrats to Wendy for a fabulous race, and for being a fabulous candidate).  And similarly mendacious Jim Ritchie appears to have gotten his comeuppance, as Shane Martin almost pulled off a majority in a three-horse race, and will be heavily favored in a runoff.  There were several other ingratiating results in this part of the state as well - as pertains to the minor offices.

But the news in the big races was not so good.

Lindsey (”we’re going to tell these bigots [ie proponents of border security] to shut up”) Graham, perhaps the only individual more reviled in South Carolina conservative circles than John McCain, defeated challenger Buddy Witherspoon by a 2 to 1 margin statewide.  This is far more remarkable than the 33% or so McCain got in “winning” the SC presidential primary a few months back.  Even here in the upstate, where I listened to hundreds of talk show callers the last few weeks and didn’t here a single caller express anything less than venom toward the RINO Senator, he somehow managed 48%.

And just as bad, Rep Bob Inglis, whom I encountered awhile back at a downtown Greenville townhall meeting where he told a hostile crowd that if we didn’t positively revel in the lock-up (for 11 and 12 years) of border agents Ramos and Compean (and consequent shutting down of effective border security) for taking their jobs seriously, then we were guilty of being unpatriotic, won by a similar margin over challenger Charles Jeter.  Making matters worse, Inglis is as much a global warming idiot as McCain, Obama, or Al Gore, adamantly opposing drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, or, for that matter, refining oil.

To rub all this in our faces, Inglis beamed in his victory speech that it was his (America-destroying) energy policies that won it for him (Jeter is a strong advocate for massive domestic drilling and refining).  My question: where are all the folks who, like my family, are going deeper and deeper into debt paying $4 and up per gallon for gas that’s under a dollar in the countries where the politicians let companies drill?  Where was the outrage over the draconian restriction on domestic oil production I’m hearing all over the local airwaves and everywhere I go around the area?  And where is all the outrage that showed itself in that 95% anti-Inglis crowd that turned out at that town hall meeting?

For that matter, where are the folks who cause the opinion polls to give congress that 14% approval rating?  Surely, if there is anywhere in the country that such low esteem should translate into defeat in the primaries, it should be here in South Carolina, where Graham and Inglis have been publicly spitting in our faces to the extent they have.

Could it be our old, friends, the Diebolds?

I suspect so, more so than ever.  Perhaps they don’t turn elections on their heads.  Maybe they just skew them mightily.  Perhaps where a Nanney can win, say, 80% of the vote (as the local yard sign ratio would indicate), the conservative can still win, with credit for maybe 62%, after the tallies are “laundered” through the computerized monstrosities.  On the other hand, a Jeter or a Witherspoon cannot hope to win, as their margins are much smaller, within the grey area where victories or near victories become sound defeats.

Just wondering out loud, but I’d like someone to explain to me the irregularities and peculiarities described above under any other scenario.  Either I’m the nutcase Charlotte talk host Keith Larson painted me to be a few months ago in my appearance on his show, or there’s something real here.

The bottom line is, after long and diligent research, I uncovered practically nobody who knew anybody who knew anybody who knew anybody who’d voted for McCain in SC.  Yet he “won.”  And ditto for Lindsey Graham, yet he “won” by a huge margin.  And everything I hear about these mysterious unverifiable voting contraptions tells me they’re eminently tamperable.

And we’re stuck with the “worst Senator” in America (or his inevitably overtly Marxist November Democratic opponent? - I’m voting for independent Mark McBride, for what it’s worth) and a congressman who wants to fiddle while gas prices and the general inflation and economic hardship that are consequences of gas prices cause America to descend into depression and chaos, and claim that his fiddling is precisely what appealed to 2/3 of the upstate electorate.

See our petition for observed, hand counted paper ballots by November on the SaveAmericaSummit website soon.  And make me the butt of your lunatic fringe jokes.  I’m going to do what I can till I breathe my last breath.

Epilogue:

1    In the case of yesterday’s Lindsey Graham “victory,” I’m being asked to believe that the vast majority of South Carolina Republicans don’t care one whit about the illegal immigration invasion qua colonization.  (If there’s one person in the Senate on record as siding completely with the hostile takers over of America and scornful of those who oppose them, it’s one Lindsey Graham.)

2    In the case of Bob Inglis, we’re being told that even in the ultra conservative upstate, South Carolina Republican voters not only don’t care at all about the above isue (I was there when Inglis told a packed house of seething citizens that they weren’t patriotic if they didn’t share his delight in the jailing - for long stretches - of border guardians who dare act like border guardians), but also don’t give a hoot about gas prices, and believe that “fighting” a blatant chimera known as “man made global warming” is worth putting at high risk their families’ very survival.

Now you tell me who’s the “nutcase” - someone willing to swallow these evident whoppers whole cloth, or one who questions - in the light of these remarkable inconsistencies and the fact that Diebolds have been found to be easily hacked - the inner workings of totally unverifiable mechanical machinery in the hands of a government that has betrayed us countless other times.

Again, watch for a petition soon @ http://www.saveamericasummit.com/ on returning America to observed hand counted paper ballots.

My cyber John Hancock:

Charles Lewis

Moderator

Save America Summit

National Outreach Director

Christian Exodus

South Carolina Director

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

South Carolina Coordinator

America’s Independent Party