500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

Sign Up to Receive Alerts and Newsletters from Laigle's Forum

Latest Posts:

Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

April 25th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

by Don Hank

Sen. Rand Paul, who serves on a committee called Homeland Secturity and Government Affairs, just now woke up and realized that an immigration reform bill of the kind he was touting a few weeks ago, needs to take national security concerns into account. He now backtracks with the following statement:

 

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

 

It’s nice that Rand Paul, author of the above mentioned much touted amnesty proposal that unquestioningly presupposed a competent DHS, finally woke up to the fact that our national security is a disaster. But why did it take a national tragedy to wake him up? What have they been discussing in that Homeland Security committee Rand has been sitting on?

Most of my readers and  correspondents know–and knew long before Rand’s plan was unfurled– that illegal aliens make up about 1/3 of our federal prison population and that Mexicans are the no. 1 demographic in terms of drunken driving convictions, including all of those involving traffic deaths of third parties. And they know that a very substantial percentage of our street drugs come from south of the border and that our downtowns are in thrall to 1.4 million gang members, of which all but 9% are foreign. All of the individuals in these problem demographics would have received a blanket amnesty under Rand Paul’s proposed “reform.”

My correspondents also know that we are in the midst of an economic crisis where jobs are scarce and 100 million Americans are receiving some form of public assistance other than social security, which tallies up to a cool $1 trillion/yr — a record number by far in US history.

So, Mr. Paul, while you have shown some aptitude as a quarterback, your side is unlikely to make touchdowns if you wait until Monday morning to pick up the ball and run.

 

Obama’s office contacts Don Hank!

See the message below first.
Below is my response to Obama’s pals sent to
I just received an urgent message on supporting the climate message of the White House.
I want very much to do that but am confused (I am not a trained climate politician).
I remember that the message used to be global warming and the polar bears were going to drown.
Is it still global warming or is it climate change?
If it is climate change, how is it changing? Warming, cooling or other?
And most importantly, how are the polar bears doing out there? I do hope they will survive this cold (hot?) weather, the poor things! I know I would not want to be out there all alone without any caring politicians around to keep me warm (or cool?).
I want to get it right when I proudly support the President’s message because I don’t want to sound like those silly Republicans who keep denying global warming when they are supposed to support it and then turn right around and deny climate change when they are supposed to support that.
Who knows what they will be denying next! Maybe life on the moon.
Best Regards,
Shirley [my pen name for email to my pal Barack]
—– Original Message —–

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:11 AM
Subject: Thanks For The Email Re: Call these climate deniers out:

Friend,

Thanks for your email.

If you have a question about Organizing for Action or need support, please write us at support@barackobama.com or call (571) 403-1776.

Click here for a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

And if you have a question about the 2012 campaign, including those regarding your contribution(s), merchandise, or an invoice, please contact Obama for America at info@obamabiden.com.

Thanks again,

Organizing for Action

Fisker failure in the news again

Remember that Spain, one of the sick old men of Europe, where photos of dumpster diving Spaniards have surfaced, got to their record unemployment levels thanks in large part to the ‘green’ initiatives of socialist prime minister Zapatero, whose green jobs program cost the country 800,000 euros per job and each job cost 2.2 regular non green jobs.
The only difference between Obama and Zapatero is that Zapatero eventually admitted his mistake and abandoned the project.
Obama just presses on rearward.
Don Hank

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

There are at least four reasons why this story is important:

1–It provides new facts most Americans didn’t know until now and blows up whatever credibility there may have been in the notion that the Islamic Society of Boston (and similar societies elsewhere) is just a group of decent Americans worshipping God in their own way, and just as peaceably as the Christians and Jews in that region. And that the Muslim American Society is demonstrating how Muslims can coexist with you and me and that they are assimilating or want to be part of the great American melting pot.

2–It blows apart any credibility in the notion that the DHS is doing a fine job of protecting you.

3–It discredits the notion that Muslims are viable candidates for integrating in democracies. (Especially since they can’t seem to achieve that goal back home).

4–More importantly, it gives us a much needed warning that calls for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are premature at best, but most likely permanently misguided. It also gives the lie to the Gang of 8′s fractured reasoning that we need to amnesty all 40-60 million (the 11 million figure is from 2000) illegal aliens so that we can find out who they are. If the FBI and the rest of DHS couldn’t figure out who the Brothers Tsarnaev were before they unleashed their mini-holocaust–despite Russian intel’s repeated warnings–there is no hope that our security agencies will learn what they ought to about the millions upon millions of undocumented whom both parties are rushing madly to legalize–instead of doing their job and repatriating them asap.

None of this is to say that a kinder gentler Islam may some day emerge. But that day seems much farther away today than it did yesterday.

Don Hank

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Dear Secular Humanist: Please Keep Your Religious Views about Abortion out of Politics!

April 1st, 2013 Anthony Horvath Posted in abortion, Children & Youth, Culture, Culture Wars, Euthanasia, Evolution, Human Rights, Socialism, Society | No Comments »

In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy.  ‘Religion’ is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion.   Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren’t allowed to impose that opinion on others.   The result is that many Christians refrain from acting ‘politically’ because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than ‘mere opinion.’

Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with ‘religion’ altogether, and like to think that they are entirely ‘fact driven.’

When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious:  secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is ‘religious, ‘ while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, ‘religious.’  And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.

This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the ‘facts’ of the secularists as the starting points.  We are expected to proceed on their terms.  And why not?  Surely without the ‘religious’ component, those ‘facts’ are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right?

But what if ‘religion’ and ‘fact’ are not opposites? Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

September 19th, 2012 Anthony Horvath Posted in abortion, Academe, Culture, Culture Wars, Euthanasia, Evolution, Freedom, Human Rights, life, Society, The Left | 11 Comments »

Anthony Horvath is a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, Christian apologist, pro-life author and speaker, and publisher.  To learn more about his latest project aimed at combating the philosophies discussed in the essay below and how you can help, click here.


Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, joked, “I can see Russia from my house.”

I can see the next holocaust from my house, and it is no joke.

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors.  Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals.  In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them.  And that was in America.

In a book written in 1920 by two German experts and applauded by American experts, it was argued that it was allowable to destroy the ‘life unworthy of life.’

Who was regarded as ‘life unworthy of life’?  The handicapped, the disabled, the diseased, the mentally ill, the ‘feeble-minded.’  Really, just about anyone the experts decided was ‘unfit’ could be deemed ‘unworthy of life.’  When eugenics morphed into the Holocaust, many of its proponents quietly went to ground.  Some asked ‘What went wrong?’ but few arrived at the right answer.

Fast forward sixty years.  Enter Julian Savulescu.

You probably don’t know who Julian Savulescu is, just as your average American off the street in 1910 wouldn’t have known who Charles Davenport was.  You probably don’t know who Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are, just as your average American in 1920 wouldn’t have known who Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding were.

But you may recall a few months ago when two ‘ethicists’ quietly submitted an article in an ethics magazine arguing that the logic of abortion does not cease after the child has fully exited the birth canal.  For all the reasons that abortion on demand was justified, so too, the two ‘ethicists’ Giubilini and Minerva argued, was infanticide.  Of course, they preferred to call it ‘after-birth abortion.’

I hope that nobody misunderstands me:  Giubilini and Minerva were correct in their analysis.  If they are to be faulted for anything, it is for stopping at the newborn.

When people heard about this article there was outrage, and not a little of it spilled over onto the journal that printed the article in the first place.  That journal was “The Journal of Medical Ethics.”  Flabbergasted, the editor defended the publication of the article, saying:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”

Yes, that is quite right.  The arguments presented were not new, and have been ‘presented repeatedly.’

He continued, “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

This embattled editor of a renown journal of medical ethics is named Julian Savulescu. Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Cloudy and scattered rioting in France

August 14th, 2012 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Culture Wars, Europe, Immigration | 2 Comments »

by Don Hank

 

Yes, I know. Why even mention it? In France, it’s like talking about the weather.

The talking heads in the videos linked below are reporting that the riots in Amiens Nord were caused by “young people.” But those who recall the Paris riots a while back know that, when speaking of rioters, the media, not only in France, but everywhere, use the words “young people” when referring to Muslim immigrants, whose name they dare not utter. Naming them would be the first step to a solution, but that would also be lending credence to Marine Le Pen’s Front National (the only party with any common sense there). Obviously, the French powers that be are willing to accept unlimited rioting and destruction rather than admit that opening their doors to mass Muslim immigration has caused unlimited rioting and destruction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVhdU0llMRc&feature=player_embedded

The video itself doesn’t mention Muslims, of course. But most of the posters think they are immigrants, or at least not indigenous French. BTW, when I did the Google search to bring up these sites, I discovered that the French words for “Amiens riots”(émeutes Amiens) brought up videos of rioting in Amiens in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 as well. Thus rioting seems to be an annual event tolerated by the authorities. Next year perhaps there will be concession stands.

In another vid presentation, talking heads discuss “les jeunes” (young people) who caused the Amiens riot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz0xOF2FVXA

But, again, in the forum beneath the video, the readers frankly speak of Muslims, immigrants, etc. These were not indigenous French young people as the media would have us believe.

Translation of one post:

Before, when the idiots spoke of popular revolt, it was civil war; today, when the idiots talk about civil war, it’s actually RACIAL war! ahahahha (This poster more or less gets it. But is it really racial? Or is it religious?—Don Hank)

Quand les bobos parlaient de révolte populaire c’était une guerre civile, aujourd’hui les bobos parlent de guerre civile alors qu’il s’agit d’une guerre RACIAL ! ahahah

America has had a lot of useful discussion of the killing of the knife-wielding Darrius Kennedy by the cops in Times Square. Here is a question to ponder: If we continue to pander to the “rights” of thugs who threaten public safety and property, will we be moving toward the French policy of denial and laissez-faire–allowing the thugs to have their way with the rest of us and thus inviting, for example, annual rioting of the kind seen in Amiens since 2008 — or even worse? Or is it better to show force once in a while to protect the innocent?

Note that the Times Square incident did NOT spark a race riot in New York. People there know their limits.

Now, if a cop had killed a “young person” in France, there’d have been war. The difference? In NY, minorities still expect the authorities to do whatever it takes to keep the peace. In France the “young people” know the cops are wusses and that they are protected by the media. In fact, it looks like the French have been largely brainwashed into accepting this kind event — perhaps as a kind of tourist attraction? Served with crêpes perhaps.

Where do you prefer to live? Your vote could help determine that.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

All major political parties want poverty for the US

August 10th, 2012 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

by Don Hank

The below-linked report shows that of all factors studied, the one most strongly correlated with GDP, or national wealth, is strength of the rule of law.

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/the-main-driver-of-gdp-growth-strong.html

Quote: …he mentioned that he had done a study based on analysis by an institution that looks at all sorts of “fuzzy” data, like how easy it is to start a business in a country, corporate taxes and business structures, levels of free trade and free markets, and the legal system. It turned out that the trait that was most positively correlated with GDP growth was strength of the rule of law. It is also one of the major factors that Niall Ferguson cites in his book Civilization as a reason for the ascendency of the West in the last 500 years, and a factor that helps explain why China is rising again as it emerges from chaos.

Amazingly, despite this strong correlation, not ONE of the 2 main parties supports the rule of law. Bush and his GOP cronies famously supported rewarding lawbreakers with amnesty. Obama has gone further, refusing to allow ICE to deport many alien felons (only the most egregious) and even suing Arizona for trying to protect itself from the invasion — even though Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says the federal government is supposed to protect the states from invasion, literally.

Last but not least is the Libertarian party, which basically thinks borders are bad for liberty and is not much in favor of laws at all. Like the early communists, they think the state will melt away if we can just teach enough people how to behave in a lawless society (anarchy). I’m not making it up: If you go to the Von Mises Institute site you can see a proud invitation to sign up for a course in “Anarcho-Capitalism,” the favorite ideology of site founder Lew Rockwell, who is a mentor of Ron Paul.

America has given up on law, instead falling all over itself to protect the “rights” of minority criminals, like the black panthers who violated election law by intimidating voters and siding with petty thugs like Trayvon Martin while seeking to jail law and order activists like George Zimmerman. And suspending ICE agents for arresting illegal aliens (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/senator-ice-agent-facing-punishment-for-arresting-illegal.html). This is a reflection of the back seat that science has taken in the public discussion, in the media and politics. We prefer catchy pandering slogans to facts. Slogans and pandering ensure poll success.

But as the law goes, so does GDP. It looks like our main political parties have all chosen poverty for us all.

Funny, none of them asked us either.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button