500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

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

Latest Posts:

Why don’t conservatives and moderates see eye to eye?

July 24th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Christian, Conservatism, Culture Wars, Islam | 4 Comments »

Why don’t conservatives see eye to eye with moderates?

by Don Hank

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.   Ephesians 6:12

A good friend of mine (whom we shall call X herein), recently raised a very important question (see title) that we often fail to answer, mostly because most of us simply can’t. This is because there are 2 kinds of true conservatives:

1–the kind who have been brought up to believe in a rigid conservative ideology, whose instincts tell them they are right but who have no idea why or how to defend it. This group is hard put to articulate its ideas and hence often reacts with anger to the Left and to ‘moderates.’ They expect them to understand common sense, and in a perfect world, they would. (They don’t understand the spiritual block against understanding).

2–the kind who have thought things through and can answer the questions of the Left and the ‘moderates’ who are deceived by the Left.

I strive to belong to the latter group. Lord forgive me where I have failed, but I try. Here is my response to X’s question as to why moderates are different from conservatives.

 

Dear X,

I think the main reason for the difference is that moderate conservatives don’t see the ‘continental drift’ of popular social and political thought in recent years. They have no idea what cultural Marxism is and they can’t see how they are manipulated by the MSM. After all, has anyone noticed the physical drift in the American continent in their lifetime? It is too minuscule to notice. Only a scientist can verify its existence. By the same token, most people could not possibly notice how the nation’s definition of ‘conservative’ has been stealthily altered by sly operatives in MSM, ‘education,’ politics, Hollywood, academe, etc.

In particular, they don’t understand that a group of white billionaire elitist men is trying to grab the reins of the planet. To them that is just too outlandish to wrap their minds around. That is also why they still insist that G.W. Bush, an advocate of a borderless US (NAU), of amnesty for the lawless, of the bailout of banks with your money and mine, and of Middle East wars that result in the death and exodus of millions of Christians, is a conservative.

It is all a matter of perception, and of our willingness to face truth head-on rather than simply to dodge the more thorny issues. More importantly, it is a spiritual question and they are spiritually blind.

Ironically, the most powerful apologists for Judeo-Christianity are the atheist-humanist transnational elitists themselves. Even if most people steadfastly believe that our struggle is against operatives of the material world, the behavior of these elitists clearly demonstrates that they know it is a spiritual battle and not a material one. They fight with that realization in mind, while we largely struggle—vainly—on the material level and wonder how it is that we are failing. Yet how could we possibly expect to win if we direct our efforts at a target that is not there?

Read more:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/why-don-t-conservatives-see-eye-to-eye-with-moderates

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Definition drift in the Snowden case

July 5th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Censorship, Freedom, Government | 1 Comment »

Most Americans still associate the idea of illegal informants or spies with people like the Rosenbergs, who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Indeed, articles on famous spies before about 1970 show that most high profile cases were working for the Soviets.

Thus, before the 70s, a spy was generally thought of as a person who shared secrets, often military, with a perceived enemy who could be expected to use those secrets to harm America, and the expected or potential harm was usually of a military nature.

Beginning with the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971, the unofficial definition of “espionage” and “spy” started to shift subliminally in the minds of Americans, along with the unofficial definition of “enemy,” in keeping with the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China. In the broadest terms, the shift could be described as being away from freedom and toward government tyranny.

Of the ten accused informants under this act, none were said to have spied for the Soviet Union, only one, Bradley Manning, allegedly leaked information that may have compromised the safety of American and allied military personnel and one, Jeffrey Sterling, allegedly leaked information about US planned sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, which could have perhaps enabled the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon somewhat earlier. These three could have arguably compromised our security.

The others, however, disclosed classified details, mostly to reporters, that in the Old America, We the people would have felt entitled to know.

More here:

 http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/definition-drift-in-the-ed-snowden-case

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Here comes the switch, don’t take the bait

May 15th, 2013 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank

Two items of interest today.

[BTW, if you enjoy this commentary, I still have room for a few more email addresses on my daily distribution list. This list receives forwarded news items and my commentary on US and world affairs every day. It also gives you a chance to sound off to decision makers, bloggers, writers and thinking people. Choice comments and news items by list members are distributed to the rest. If you want to be added, just send me, Don Hank, an email at zoilandon@msn.com and ask to be added to my Daily Distribution List.]

Item 1

Mark Zuckerberg wants more immigrants to work cheap in his air conditioned sweat shops. He has founded FWD.us, a front org for his pro-immigration plans and is partnering with false ‘conservative’ group Americans for a Conservative Direction.

Cutting to the chase, any conservative organization at this dreadful juncture in the US economy would have to oppose the importation of labor tooth and nail. Our employment is nowhere near where the government says it is.

The government is sweeping millions of statistics under the carpet by saying that people who have given up looking for work are not unemployed. The 100 million on welfare are ‘employed’? We are probably about where Spain is now, were it not for welfare and food stamps. We certainly don’t need to import labor—even if that would make Zuckerberg richer.

To make matters worse, the plan supported by Gang of 8 ringleaders Rubio and Graham, who play the lead roles in the linked videos by Americans for a Conservative Direction, would give amnesty to the people making up over 90 percent of dangerous criminal gangs in our cities. If they said, ‘hey, let’s import more terrorists,’ that would actually be an improvement over their current plan. Gangs kill, rape, steal and deal 24-7. Terrorists only kill on special occasions.

These men need to be thrown out on their ears.

Rubio is lying through his teeth when he says that this new immigration reform plan is tough. It is not tough in any of the ways he says it is.

And that is exactly why Mort Zuckerberg supports Americans for a Conservative Direction. They are Democrats in drag.

And they think real conservatives are stupid.

Item 2

I had previously written that ABC anchor Jonathan Karl had gone on the Bill O’Reilly show and admitted that the administration’s report on the murderous Benghazi attack was full of holes. I had attributed that behavior to a certain ‘collegiality  effect,’ by which Karl would have identified with the dead ambassador and the beleaguered witnesses as colleagues. This would explain why ABC, which had never gone to bat for the little guy, would suddenly turn on their beloved leader.

Now a new report, also very damaging to Obama, comes from the same anchor Jonathan Karl. This time the collegiality effect, if present, is not nearly as prominent. Jonathan Karl seems to be defending all conservatives, both great and small.

 

Read more here to find out why this is just bait and what the intended switch will be:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/here-comes-the-switch-don-t-take-the-bait

[BTW, I still have room for a few more email addresses on my daily distribution list. This list receives forwarded news items and my commentary on US and world affairs every day. It also gives you a chance to sound off to decision makers, bloggers, writers and thinking people. Choice comments and news items by list members are distributed to the rest. If you want to be added, just send me, Don Hank, an email at zoilandon@msn.com and ask to be added to my Daily Distribution List.]

 

 

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

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