First, thank you to all those who tuned in last Friday and heard my interview with JD Hayworth. It was a great show, and JD was an absolutely wonderful and unforgettable guest. I hope to have him back. More and more Arizonans are getting behind JD as the man who can put John McCain out to pasture. In this interview, JD pulled a lot of facts out of his hat about illegal immigration and what it is costing America. He is definitely no Beltway insider!

For my next broadcast, I have lined up an interview with John Wayne tucker tomorrow, Friday, March 12th, 2010, at 8-9 pm Pacific Time (11:00-12:00 est).

John Wayne Tucker is a rock-ribbed conservative candidate running for Congress in Missouri’s 3rd District. Tucker has been a regular Guest on the program. His main challenge is winning the primary against RINO insider, Ed Martin of the Matt Blunt Email Scandal. Martin was then-Gov. Blunt’s Chief of Staff and was fired because of his involvement, yet he was never indicted nor forced to disclose who Gov. Blunt was protecting. Blunt (who had been a strong anti-Invasion advocate as Governor and had possible Presidential aspirations) did not run for re-election and his career was ruined as a homosexual tryst was rumored to be what was covered up. 

Tucker is not a politician but a former Southern Baptist minister and schoolteacher who ran against Democrat Rep. Carnahan in 2008 and lost. The RNC and MRP have refused to back Tucker because he is a conservative and doesn’t have the big money behind him that Martin does. Tucker decided to run as a Republican despite this fact. The Missouri primary is August 3rd.

Dave

I have said before that defeating RINO John McCain is the biggest, most important job for the grassroots in America. That is because the grassroots rarely gets a chance to pick a non-RINO in the primaries. Sure, you defeated the red-eyed liberal Martha Coakley in MA, but you wound up with RINO Scott Brown, who turned right around and spit in your eye, enthusiastically voting for the phony Obama jobs bill. Anyone listening to Scott’s campaign speeches knew it would happen eventually.

But knocking out John McCain in the Senate, now that’s a different kettle of fish.

That’s where Dave Levine comes in.

Dave is doing a job most Americans won’t do and he’s not even Mexican!

Unlike any other radio host I know of, Dave does major, serious investigation to find candidates for national office who are conservative constitutionalists and, in particular, are non-RINOs – that is, strongly oppose illegal immigration, are for law and order, solidly moral and generally believe the Constitution means what it says. Dave vets them personally by actually contacting their campaign, eventually getting through to the big guys themselves and asking them tough questions.

Dave is pleased to present for you an interview with J.D. Hayworth tomorrow, Friday March 5, 2010, at 8-9 pm Pacific Time (11:00-12:00 EST). J.D. is the most serious challenger RINO John McCain has to contend with, and according to Dave, is a real constitutionalist and wants to stop illegal immigration. Now let’s not get too bogged down here arguing over details and give this one to McCain. I can’t think of anyone who will hurt America more than John McCain (e.g., the un-Constitutional McCain-Feingold, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, McCain’s latest attempt to regulate over the counter vitamin supplements and health foods, and the McCain-Kennedy amnesty scheme.  Poison for American freedom).

And if you think the “conservative” media are holding their own in the area of illegal immigration, think again. Almost no one in the mainstream “conservative” media (almost 100% neocon) and practically no one in the New Media any more will ask a candidate their views on illegal immigration. That topic is almost dead, thanks to our inattention and their stealth.

Yet, ironically, the grassroots are more and more concerned about US sovereignty, i.e., border control and the Invasion.

Dave Levine never misses an opportunity to ask his candidates about this and other key issues the media have all but abandoned.

That is why I am proud to know Dave and to support his show.

Check out Dave’s online show tomorrow here:

http://themicroeffect.com/listenlive.htm

To listen online, click on The Micro Effect link above, scroll down to where it says “Additional Audio Feeds Are Here” and select one of the three WMP options – 8, 16 or 24 kbps.

To call the Dave Levine Show toll-free and speak with JD Hayworth, call (888) 747-1968

The show can also be heard on some small (low power) FM stations across the country that are listed at

http://themicroeffect.com/microstations.htm

Donate generously to The Dave Levine show here.

If you want to be a sponsor, let me know at zoilandon@msn.com or contact Dave at  thedavelevineshow@gmail.com.

Don Hank

There is only one group strong enough and rich enough to destroy the Left and that is the Left itself. And they do it every time, because unlike normal people, lefties believe in their own immortality and the historical inevitability of their hare-brained utopian agendas.

So, believing that all reasonable people everywhere agree with them, they inevitably get careless and start stripping people of their God-given rights, such as the right to speak one’s mind. Censorship is a sure-fire way to ultimately lose and give all the power to your opponent!

What the below-linked article fails to mention is that Geert wilders is facing trial soon for “incitement” or offending Muslims, because of his now-famous anti-Koran video “Fitna”.

He’s got a lot of people on his side there, Dutch people who have seen what Muslims do to their society — such as the murder of film maker Theo Van Gogh, another outspoken skeptic of Muslim immigration policies. No amount of political power can erase that outrage from people’s minds.

Keep censoring, Lefties. You have found the enemy (psst: he is YOU. Yeah).

Don Hank

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/geert_wilders_party_scores_big.html

Late breaking:

The “Cyber security” bill HR4061 just passed the House. It is the biggest threat to the Internet in the US, although Europe now controls the Net, and there is talk of censorship there. Do not expect to continue to use the Net freely without a MAJOR fight. How to fight?

Call your senators and tell them this will not fly. The Internet is not a threat to America. Internet chatter is monitored to alert us of threats. If we censor that chatter, no more surveillance.

Open borders are the main threat to our security. Ask them where that fence is.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Trinckes/john100.htm

http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=7571

I recently found a text that I had periodically been looking for for quite awhile. I hear people all the time using one of the verses or quotes of Jesus from the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew ch 7 regarding judging. Matthew 7:1  ¶Judge not, that ye be not judged.

In using this verse to squash someones judgment of anothers person or action, or in defense of someone pronouncing judgment on us, is many times taken out of context.

If we look at Gods original commands in the book of Leviticus we get another perspective.

Leviticus 19:15  Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Did Jesus go contrary to His Fathers will? I don’t think so. We cannot throw the perverbial baby out with the bath water and say that we are not to judge anyone in any situation because as God commanded, we are to “judge righteously” or “rightly”.

Judgment was to be blind to a persons wealth or lack therof as well as blind to their status and power in society or lack therof as well.

IMHO it is wrong for us as God’s people to avoid judgment of others for any and all reasons.  

1 Corinthians 6:1  ¶Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2  Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4  If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Albeit this does not give us free reign to go around pronouncing judgment on everyone….. but not all judgment is wrong.

Continuum, New York and London 2010

IN THE SERIES: MAJOR CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN THINKERS

Edited by John Meadowcroft,

In this eminently readable, intellectually stimulating and compact volume Professor Dennis O’Keeffe does an excellent job of introducing us to Edmund Burke, his life and family, the essence of his most notable works, his parliamentary career and manifesto writing and how apparent contradictions in his own life and philosophy are reconciled in his intellectual and political development.

“No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends.” wrote Winston Churchill another Conservative who took his own Burkean internal conflicts (between landed conservatism and the power of the Empire on the one hand which he sought to preserve and individual emancipation and free trade which he promoted) to the point of twice “crossing the floor” in party allegiance.

In the case of Edmund Burke there were the additional conflicts of an Irish Catholic origin (although his father had converted to Anglicanism some 9 years before Edmund’s birth) and his protests at the demands by the protestant Irish Parliament of Irish Catholics on the one hand and on the other his Quaker education from the age of 12, his attendance at the Protestant Trinity College Dublin and his life long Anglicanism and admiration of the English Protestant polity based on the 1689 settlement and the preservation of the British Empire. The latter however never prevented him from espousing (for their time) radical views about slavery, economic corruption in India, discriminatory legislation in Ireland and sympathy for American Colonists whose freedom-loving independence of nature he identified as being too similar to their cousins in Britain for conflict to be a wise course of action.

Like most solidly based intellectual Conservatives Burke began his political life with an interest in radical thought, testing and probing the foundations of a social and economic structure which he would ultimately help to reform and defend – dissecting in Burke’s case the advances of the Enlightenment into the welcome principles of freedom of thought while rejecting the arid abstractions of excessive rationalism. Like my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman who saw “scientific” Marxism as a “self delusion beyond repair” and became a leading creator of the classical liberal Conservatism of the Thatcher Government so Burke saw that the hubris of de haut en bas French Enlightenment philosophes had led not only to the bloody excesses of the French Revolution but would, as he predicted, lead to the rise of tyrants and bloody revolutions on a vaster international scale in future centuries.

As Sherman ended his political journey fusing classical liberal thought with Conservative principles (a set of principles which even the Labour Government did not dare overtly to unravel) so Burke – having started by editing at Trinity College “The Reformer” and in 1756 writing A Vindication of Natural Society containing ideas hostile to the Church and the political order of the day – ultimately became a philosophical and political pillar of the growing British Empire.

Even at his most critical Burke always sought political balance, seeking to reform and preserve rather than to petulantly tear down for he saw in a just “natural development” of power in proportion to responsibility that social and economic progress which the totalitarian revolutionaries would for ever exclude as they swept aside not only religious and aristocratic leadership but religious and social foundations. With his cousin William Burke he wrote in 1757 “An Account of the European Settlements in America” in which he praised the “independence” of the “ordinary sort”, the free trade which allowed them to flourish and their aristocratic leadership – all ensuing, Burke thought, from the 1689 Settlement which provided a healthy balance between Government, Monarchy and Parliament whose sole justification was its accountability to the people. How Burke would have condemned those 20^th century British Parliamentarians who bypassed the true sovereigns in European Treaty Law to undermine their Parliament and nation!

It was in that vein that he wrote in 1770 (having previously formed the “New Whigs” from both Tory and Whig dissidents and writing their manifesto) “Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents” opposing George III’s Royal encroachment on Government. We must note how that Crown Prerogative has nowadays been usurped by successive British Governments under Treaty Law to sign away the voters sovereign rights. “The Commons answered to the People and not the King”, was the essence of Burke’s attack then – just as today the democratic nationists seek to re-assert the power of the true sovereigns (the people) over an out of control political class which delegated powers to alien control and foreign jurisdiction. Burke wrote:

“The House of Commons can never be a control on other parts of             Government unless they are controlled themselves by their constituents and unless these constituents possess some right in the choice of that Housewhich it is not in the power of that house to take away.”

Since the late 1960s the elected representatives of the British people have conspired to do just that. They have usurped the power of the people as represented in Parliament and transferred most decision making to a different legislature and judiciary through confusing, covert and unconstitutional means: Crown prerogative power, treaty law, administrative law, delegated powers and statutory instruments – all designed to bypass the representatives of the people. And how successful they have been! Burke who predicted the Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins of future centuries would have immediately grasped the more covert and insidious revolutionary aims of Heath, Clarke and Howe, Mitterand, Kohl and Delors as they sacrificed the stability of nationhood on the altar of the corporatist Euro-State!

Burke would I think also have instinctively understood the nature of corporatism – that socialist form of capitalism which underpins both the supranational collective of the Euro-State and the philosophy of “World Government”. When we consider his radical attacks on corporate corruption in India, the encroachment on religious freedom in Ireland by the State and the taxation of the American colonists we see an instinctive rejection of State/corporate power but a defence of nationhood – albeit overseen (in his day) by a benign imperial power. O’Keeffe points out that Burke totally rejected all appeals to Jacobinism or Napoleonism to rectify any injustices. He would have been perhaps most supportive of the more modern idea of “imperial trusteeship” or the idea (if not the reality) of the modern British Commonwealth.

Burke is best know for his 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France and his critique of the rootless rationalism of many Enlightenment philosophers which underpinned, as he saw it, the extreme dismissal of the past and hence the inevitable extreme and bloody consequences. By rejecting the whole in revolutionary fervour the French, said Burke:

“chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society and had everything to begin anew…..by despising everything that belonged to you.”

In effect they engaged not just in destruction but in self-destruction, kicking away the historical platform on which the reformer would base his reforms. O’Keeffe contrasts the optimism of the Liberal Benjamin Constant (who sought to look beyond the excesses of the revolution to an idealistic legacy) with Burke who saw only an orgy of destruction which would feed on its own irrationality and have a permanent deleterious effect on political discourse and ideas.

For Burke the irrational blood letting was ironically caused by an arid rationality. He condemned Voltaire’s anti Christian form of Enlightenment and especially Rousseau’s “general will” and the implicit consent of individuals to a governed society.

“We are not the converts of Rousseau. We are not the disciples of Voltaire……. Atheists are not our preachers: madmen are not our lawgivers”

Burke was right to foresee the fruits of the supposed “reason” of the French Revolution transformed into further brutalities. For 19^th century Marxism, as O’Keeffe notes, added “science” to their “rational” certainties and forged a more efficient killing machine. We must be thankful for the resurgence of a new (however tenuous) liberal order to blow away the “scientism” (Hayek) of Marx’s children and establish a philosophy of an Open Society (Popper) for what prosperity and democratic freedoms we now enjoy.

Burke was equally suspicious of “new money” and the industrial and financial worlds which were taking over from landed wealth but O’Keeffe rightly surmises that in time Burke would surely, as a life long reformer, have recognised the advances afforded by industrial development – not least I suggest in employing the landed poor (as the agricultural revolution made their labour redundant) and the slaves for whose freedom Burke had himself campaigned. He would also have appreciated the at least partly successful modern attempts to combine the fruits of Conservative morality and property rights with the liberal virtues of individualism, entrepreneurship and free trade in the 1980s and 1990s.

Burke’s admiration of all things English arose out of his appreciation of the Rule of Law, its gradual Constitutional development (without the equivalent of a French revolution) the balance of powers between nobles, monarchy and Commons, an aristocracy constrained by constitution, the possibility of upward social mobility and the Empire (“Without Freedom it would not be the British Empire” he said.) Burke opposed “any abstract plan of Government or of freedom” – so he would undoubtedly have seen the modern concentration on “human rights” (which unlike freedoms are defined by the rulers, always imperfectly and incompletely and those who define can also take away!) and he would not have been surprised to see that the old Soviet tyranny had no end of stipulated “rights” nor that the builders of “Europe” have used human “rights” and an artificial “citizenship” to undermine the freedom of and freedoms within the nation states.

This excellent volume concludes with a series of summaries of how Burke would have seen and judged the modern political world. “Under Burkean Eyes: Burke and Our present blessings and woes” both seeks to bring Burke up to date and uses practical examples to illustrate his overall philosophy. This part of the book is of course partly surmise and extrapolation and is open to critique but it is a most stimulating provocation to Burkean thought.

O’Keeffe seeks to apply Burke’s “clear feet on the ground reasonableness” to inter alia the crudity of modern political discourse, the West’s triumphalism, the superiority of capitalist economics, the new rise of India, the fatalism of Islam and socialism, Rousseauian Green Movements and man made global warming and the attack on the family – an excellent introduction (as is the entire volume) to the modern relevance of Edmund Burke.

Rodney Atkinson

February 2010

Rodney Atkinson is a political economist and businessman, a former Merchant Banker, Academic and adviser to Ministers in the Thatcher Government. He is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and the author of, inter alia,  Europe’s Full Circle and The Emancipated Society which proposed a fusion of Conservative and Classical Liberal thought on the basis of emancipated versus dependent societies.

By Don Hank

Al Gore never quits. He has now written an article for the New York Times turning up the heat on the global warming hysteria.

There is no science in the article, and even a low-key allusion to the fraud perpetrated by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which deliberately ignored data pointing to global cooling and presented the fraudulent “hockey stick chart” to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as bona fide.

The climate change propagandists maintain that the actual data on which the dire Gore’ian predictions are based are available on the internet and therefore they weren’t really hiding anything. Of course, security experts tell us the safest place to hide something in the home is right out in the open. The Left has long mastered this technique.

But they are right, after all. The data are there for everyone to examine.

But there are at least 2 reasons you aren’t finding them.

1 – The warming-hysterical mainstream media aren’t about to besmirch themselves by pointing out the actual temperature trends, since global cooling is evident at the darnedest places.

2 –  Many conservatives are loathe to dedicate the study time needed to understand the issue.

Their intellectual laziness is an expensive mistake, because it is obvious to anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the issue, that “global warming” is all about bilking the world’s working stiffs out of even more money with a universal carbon tax and scams like the one perpetrated in the UK, where 1,700 people lost their jobs and almost a billion pounds in “carbon offset” cash was or will be paid to close down the Corus Redcar steel plant and move it to India, where supposedly less carbon will be emitted thanks to new technology. Excuse us, but couldn’t the new environmentally friendlier technology have been introduced in the UK instead of firing all those people and stealing a billion pounds from them?

But the real kicker is that the head of the Indian company (Tata) receiving the taxpayer’s hard earned cash is also the head of the IPCC, where the “carbon offset” scam originated – a clear cut conflict of interests. That’s illegal and would give these newly unemployed Redcar employees a perfect basis for a lawsuit. I would strongly urge them to aggressively pursue their interests in court.

So to set the record straight, here are some real data, collected by real scientists showing how unreal “global warming” really is:

1-Recent arctic data (up to 2009) show cooling and more extensive sea ice:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/04/bad-news-for-catlin-expedition-satellite-data-shows-arctic-cooling-in-feb-march/

2 – Earlier arctic data also show cooling, since 1956:

http://strat27.met.fu-berlin.de/products/cdrom/html/section2-3.html

3 – Over the last 100 years, arctic temperatures reached their highest levels in the 1930s, not in Al Gore’s life time, notwithstanding powerful suggestions to the contrary:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

Further reading:

IPCC scandal – Climategate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

Global cooling charts:

http://wakeup1776.blogspot.com/2010/02/arctic-getting-cooler-picture-paints.html

Perhaps you will have read the press release about Tony Perkins having been “disinvited” to prayer luncheon for military families. There is nothing like martyrdom to create sympathy for a person or group.

Indeed, groups like Perkins’ Family Research Council seem to be doing a lot of good, certainly more good than evil, one would assume.

But good and evil deeds have priority levels. If you make a strong statement that supports the don’t ask don’t tell policy (as opposed to encouraging open homosexuality in the military), then you will garner the sympathy of most conservatives – a low priority action with minor ripple effects but a good deed nonetheless.

Yet, what if you make such a courageous statement but at the same time support a presidential candidate who has been known to support un-Christian policies like same-sex marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual teaching in the schools? That is a higher-priority action than making a simple statement because now you are enabling a presidential candidate with an unsound record, who, if elected by your followers on the strength of your endorsement, can do a lot of serious damage on a wide scale – damage that cannot be undone simply by making a statement in support of “family values.” Talk is cheap. “Progressive” culture change, enabled by wolves in sheep’s clothing, is dear.

As we have shown previously at Laigle’s Forum, Tony Perkins refers to Mitt Romney as “pro-family” even though he knows that Mitt had a decidedly anti-family administration as MA governor, supporting same-sex marriage by unconstitutionally issuing an order to his JPs to perform same-sex marriages, signing into law a government health care plan that included a $50 abortion, and enabling public schools to teach the doctrine that homosexuality is an essentially normal and safe lifestyle, and even to encourage students to try it.

But perhaps Mitt’s critics are uncharitable, you say. After all, like the Apostle Paul, he claims to have had a spiritual epiphany and to have promised to “go and sin no more.” How touching.

But what do you suppose would have become of the fledgling Christian religion if the Apostle Paul had been found to have stoned Christians after his road-to-Damascus epiphany?

Well, that is tantamount to what Mitt’s critics, credible ones like Gregg Jackson, once a prominent leader of the Christian conservative movement and author of the best selling “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies” and prominent conservative and former prominent CNP (Council on National Policy) insider Steve Baldwin, claim Mitt Romney did while governor.

More significantly, as Steve Baldwin maintains in the following article, the transgressions of Toney Perkins were a symptom of a much wider-spread capitulation to evil in exchange for worldly gain. A symptom of the almost-total collapse of the “pro-family” movement in America.

He ought to know.

Don Hank

Inside the CNP

By Steve Baldwin

I was with CNP (Council on National Policy) for nine years.  My goal was to transform CNP into a group that truly represented real grass-roots conservatives.  And there are some good people still in CNP today, many of whom I recruited.  But the group remains dominated by leaders from the Reagan era who long ago became comfy with their nice salaries and benefits and haven’t been warriors in decades. And, yes, many of them have sold out their principles. I’ve come to the conclusion that this group of phony leaders have actually set the movement back light years.  Indeed, by claiming in all their direct mail pieces how well their groups were allegedly doing, most grass-roots conservatives mistakenly assumed their battles were being fought by well-funded groups inside the beltway. The reality was that our leadership rotted out from within many years ago and that, in fact, we have been losing our battles inside the beltway far more often than the grass-roots realized.  Indeed, there are very few leaders inside the beltway I would trust today.  

Around 2004 I started to observe how the Romney machine gradually began to buy out many groups and leaders associated with CNP and the more I dug, the uglier it got. I then started to speak out against the Romney propaganda machine and how his five PACs and foundations were spreading money around the movement like Santa Claus throwing out candy at a Christmas Day parade.  I don’t think I knew it at the time, but this was the beginning of the end for me as CNP’s executive director.  I used my position to confront leaders regarding their support for Romney.  I confronted Bopp, Perkins, National Review writers, Human Events writers, Dobson, Minnery, Norquist and dozens of other key leaders who had bought into this notion that Romney was a conservative superstar and something akin to Ronald Reagan.

After a year or two of exposing Romney’s liberal background, I begun to pick up serious enemies on the CNP board and by late 2008, the Romney partisans who dominate the CNP board trumped up a few phony reasons to force me out. I can’t prove without a doubt that it was the Romney issue that did me in, but I think it was.  It was a real eye opener for me because it dawned on me that over time many leaders whom I used to respect were in fact using the Romney campaign to increase their power.  I had also discovered a lot of dirty little secrets that I think my board members would have preferred for me to keep my mouth shut about. Such as how the Heritage Foundation took $35,000 in contributions from Romney’s PAC and then promptly started to promote his socialized health care plan — which later became a model for ObamaCare. 

It was also shocking to find many so called pro-family leaders within FRC and Focus on the Family promoting Romney as if they were unaware that Romney had unilaterally signed an executive order creating homosexual marriage in his home state.  Indeed, many of our national pro-family leaders sat by silently when Romney did this, even looking the other way when his administration gave a “parent of the year” award to a homosexual couple and pretending not to notice the rabid, hard left homosexual judges Governor Romney appointed to the bench. Then, these very same “leaders” promoted Romney a few years later as a “pro-family superstar” and as someone the entire movement should get behind.

Essentially, Romney was the catalyst for the successful implementation of two policies– socialized health care and homosexual marriage — that are now threatening to destroy what’s left of America’s Christian and Constitutional Heritage.  But our movement’s leadership sat there and watched it happen and then, when Romney became a presidential candidate, they all pretended not to know anything about his background and tried to make him the movement’s candidate for president.  It was a stunning coup.  It just blew me away.  

The expose you wrote with Paine regarding Romney’s sell out on homosexual marriage certainly did jolt me but I had already known by then how incredibly liberal Romney was.  While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had actually sent a delegation from his Department of Education to California to testify before the state legislature (where I had served for six years) about how Massachusetts is the model nationwide for “gay-friendly” curricula and pro-homosexual events at its public schools.  They were urging legislators in California to adopt similar legislation. Romney was apparently quite proud of this and this was only five years ago.  

The other discovery that shook my faith in our leadership was the financial links I found between Romney, National Review and Human Events (surprise! both publicly endorsed him) and then while documenting financial transactions between HE and Romney, I discovered that the publisher of Human Events was not only a homosexual but his FEC disclosures showed he was pouring his profits into Democrat and homosexual PACS.  When I started sending out emails about that, the you-know-hat hit the fan.  I had taken too many shots at the powers to be and it was apparently determined by the movement gods on Mt. Olympus somewhere that I could no longer hold a position in the center of the conservative movement.   

And so, the official decree went out:  BALDWIN MUST BE PURGED FROM THE MOVEMENT ASAP!  And I was. And I’m glad, because I now realize that what many people assume was a real conservative leadership in DC, was a fact in group of power mongers that cared more about money and power than actually conserving America’s constitutional heritage.

I have shown before that the internet is very much under attack in Europe, which now completely controls it. Censorship-happy Europe is the very worst place to be controlling your freedom of speech.

The world elites are stealing our freedom incrementally by stealth, just as they have been doing for the last century since the founding of the Marxist Fabian Society in England.

Now some Google officials have been sentenced to prison in Europe for allowing the posting of a video clip showing a boy with Down’s syndrome being abused by a group of students. It was hardly what anyone would call graphic or violent footage but it was a good excuse for censorship that could not be left to go to waste.

The group Vividown brought suit and the judge sentenced the Google officials to prison based on an alleged violation of the victim’s privacy. Nota bene: There is no mention of any trial against the perpetrators. Clearly, no one is portraying them in a bad light.

Anyone who expects to be able to use the Internet freely from here on out is not paying attention.

There are at least 2 reasons why the court (in Milan) accepted the suit and issued this incredibly draconian sentence, not on the perpetrators of the abuse but on those who dared to make it public:

1–The elites need to keep progressing toward total control of the Internet until they control it just as tightly as they do the “mainstream” press. Otherwise the masses may eventually break free and demand a say in the governments of their nations.

2–The only way illegal activity can continue unabated is by censoring the evidence — in this case, the video showing children harassing a handicapped boy. The real issue is the violation of the boy’s rights and in a common-sense traditional world, the courts and press would be focusing on the perpetrators and demanding they be punished.

But those days are gone. In the increasingly autocratic EU and in the individual governments of Europe, corruption abounds and officials are routinely getting away with misdemeanors and crimes. Those who take steps to expose them and bring them to justice are attacked in the media in subtle ways designed to make the unsuspecting public believe that telling the truth was somehow a criminal violation of their privacy rights. Thanks to distortions in the press, the issue becomes one of how whistleblowers violate people’s “rights” by telling the truth about perpetrators and abusers of human rights. Attention is diverted away from the perpetrators and toward those who exposed them. Readers are gently persuaded to accept the notion that committing crimes or violating human rights is of little consequence, but that exposing a perpetrator is a criminal violation of privacy.

Think about it. If this new policy of trying and punishing the ones who report crimes under color of “protecting the victim” and ignoring or downplaying the perpetrators is pursued to its logical end, anyone who reports on a crime in detail in the media, particularly by showing images of graphic crime scenes or battered victims, can be considered to have violated the rights of the victim and can be given jail time, thereby trivializing the actual crime itself and inevitably paving the way for increased criminality. At the very least, in a reversal of technological advances, the presentation of videotaped evidence against perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanors would not only be inadmissable (as is sometimes the case already), but in fact would be punishable in some cases by harsher penalties than the crimes it was attempting to expose!

The following site (also from Europe — UK in this case) provides an important hint as to why the elites think it is important to make the whistleblowers appear to be the bad guy in order to cover up for high-ranking perpetrators:

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/hollie-greig-scandal-talk-by-robert-green-1-of-5flv/153578043

So far, America has not fallen quite this far, thanks in large part to the Internet. But if the European elites can succeed in censoring the Internet throughout the world, it can easily happen here as well, even eventually becoming the norm. (In case you missed the news, control of the Internet was transferred from the US to Europe last year, and since then, the attacks on our freedom have been substantial).

Thus, in order to protect high-ranking evil doers and dictatorial policies, the Internet as we know it is being attacked like never before! They can’t afford to have you know the truth.

Europe has long been a dictatorship — where the people now have almost no say in any of the lawmaking process or choice of lawmakers or judges – but sadly, few Europeans realize it. Most are under the influence of the sensational media which keep them dazzled by images of glamorous stars and athletes, cats rescued by firemen, “global climate crisis” and the latest cinematic achievements.

We will see more and more of this censorship and down-dumbing as time goes on. The pretext is privacy, but the real issue is freedom of speech. The use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to censor is a new and creative one. Just wait. There will be thousands of such excuses and each one will seem “justified” to the uninitiated who fail to understand what is going on behind the scenes.

But legal censorship isn’t the only way to silence sites like this one. Recently, the far-left site Tecnorati condemned Laigle’s Forum as “neo-nazi” for the article “Enjoy the internet while you can.” Other than mention of an anonymous report, no reason was given for this, but my best guess is that I had mentioned in the article that the far-left Frankfurt School was founded by a group of Jewish German Marxists who came to the US in the early 30s to avoid the impending Holocaust. My use of the word “Jewish” is no-doubt deemed anti-Semitic by the hypersensitive tecno rats, and this pretext is no different from the use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to go after whistleblowers. Of course, if I hadn’t mentioned they were Jewish, the reader would have been left wondering why a group of Germans would be fleeing before the impending holocaust, so the use of the word was clearly not racist. Besides, I didn’t say anything negative about them, only that they were intent on destroying traditional American culture, and that’s a positive for the far left, so what’s the problem?

But the point is: for a group of Marxist activists desperate to censor, any excuse will do.

There is very little time left for the public to wake up in time to save what is left of the New Media from the wolves.

Enjoy it while you can. Or better yet, help save it by spreading the word.

Don Hank

European censorship

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/13/you-can-help-stop-world-dictatorship/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/16/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/

Fortunately, the American people have not completely fallen for this scam as yet. But the UK, which has long labored under the heavy hand of two essentially foreign governments — their “own” out-of-touch ”leaders” and the EU — has had little choice. Almost none of the elected leaders in the UK there are in touch with the people, who are increasingly aware that they are being scammed on a grand scale. (While serving as the head of state, Tony Blair was also the head of the Fabian Socitey, whose avowed purpose is to undermine democracy and introduce Marxism — Karl Marx’s sister was one of the founders).

Now please pay attention: America now faces the same choices as they once did: either we go it alone as the exceptional nation we have been or we take that same turn into oblivion and let the “elites” take us over. So far we have done a terrible job of maintaining our sovereignty and our representative government. Many “conservatives” and even the somewhat more enlightened Tea Party people have fallen for the RINO neocon scam in MA, where Scott Brown was presented as a “conservative”. CPAC portrayed Scott, Mitt Romney and other RINOs the same way, although, to the credit of the attendees, in a poll taken by CPAC, Romney lost to Ron Paul — a sign that the leadership of groups like this is no longer calling the shots.  A McCain loss in his Senate campaign in Arizona would be a further sign that even without any higher-up leadership, the grassroots can now make up its own mind.

Our heads are very slowly emerging from the sand, but there are a lot of GOP die-hards out there who keep longing for the “good old days” of the globalist, open-borders GW Bush administration. They haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The press release appearing below is one of the most amazing but likewise, one if the saddest, pieces  of news Laigle’s Forum has ever received from an independent source.

It is in fact the fulfillment of what WND’s Jerome Corsi had foreseen and written about earlier (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118953). It shows not only the extent of the criminal activity of the world elites but also the extent to which they will go to hush up their activities.

The sender, the assistant to Nigel Farage, founder of the UK Independent Party (UKIP), one of the most outspoken voices in Europe and a man who has consistently opposed the European Union dictatorship — even from his position as a Member of Parliament in the EU, sent out the press release immediately after dictating it, showing the outrageous consequences of “carbon credits.”

To sum it up, 1 billion pounds sterling  in carbon credits were given to an Indian-owned UK steelworks so that the plant could be closed down — ostensibly to save the world from the emissions caused by this plant — leaving 1,700 workers jobless. And here is the rub: in Robin-Hood fashion, the cool billion of UK taxpayer money will be invested in steel plants in India, where no one believes in the “carbon offset” schemes and where the emissions will continue unabated, with nothing of the stated goal being accomplished.  The net result is an enormous transfer of wealth by Fabian-style stealth from a “rich” (but soon to be poor if the elites have their way) country to a developing country. I hope you understand that the end game of the elites is to “spread the wealth around” as Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet or anything else. It is like Chicago-style power politics on a world scale.

It is vitally important for us to be aware that all globalists and globablist organizations (like the CFR) want only to spread the wealth, Marxist style. They do not want prosperity for you or your children and, as evidenced hereinbelow, they could care less about the environment or “global warming.”  And here is the smoking gun in Mr. Nigel Farage’s press release, as dictated to his secretary.

Don Hank

Sir

Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesborough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (“mothballed” is the euphemism)  It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.  By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

There’s more.  The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP’s leader in the EU’s “parliament”, Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC’s “Question-Time” programme, from Middlesborough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the “Question-Time” panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week’s Sunday Express, has also been “pulled”.

 Yours etc

On another note, please let us know what you think of the below-linked post “Enjoy the internet while you can.” For example, is there anything offensive in the way it is written? Please let us know either by sending us a note at zoilandon@msn.com or by adding a comment at the bottom of this latest post “The rotten fruits of…”

Thank you!

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/enjoy-the-internet-while-you-can/

Further reading 

Climate change hoax:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/10/1181/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-takes-hit-take-action-on-dod-pro-homo-policy/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/11/30/the-real-climate-conference-in-copenhagen/

European Union as dictatorship:

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/03/25/government-by-deception/

http://laiglesforum.com/europe-a-dictatorship/

Freedom threatened:

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/08/31/816/

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/11/26/america-in-full-suicide-mode/

Africa will do fine if only “progressives” can keep their hands off.

Interesting that our first black White House resident is harming his own people by encouraging the spread of AIDs in the continent of his origin – if not his birth.

Don Hank

Uganda Rejects Obama’s Pro-Homosexual “Change”

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  February 5, 2010

Accuracy in Media’s review of coverage of the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda finds that it has been completely one-sided, inaccurate, and distorted beyond belief.

Ugandan Christian minister Martin Ssempa has issued a strong rebuttal to President Obama’s criticism of his country for considering passage of a law to discourage and punish certain homosexual practices. “Sodomy is neither the change we want nor can believe in,” says Ssempa, who runs the Family Policy and Human Rights Center in Uganda.

Ssempa, a major player in the country’s successful anti-AIDS program, says that Obama has an “obsession with the spread of sodomy in Africa,” in contrast to the efforts of the George W. Bush Administration to help Uganda resist the dangerous sexual practices which facilitate the spread of the deadly disease. The Ugandan anti-AIDS program has emphasized abstinence and monogamy.

Ssempa’s website declares, “HIV/AIDS is not an allergy. It is not a gay disease. It is not a badge of honor. It is a cold-blooded, indiscriminating killer that can only be stopped by a proven solution–abstinence until marriage and faithfulness within marriage.”

More here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/uganda-rejects-obamas-pro-homosexual-change/