The Newt behind the suit

Newt is a good talker. So was Obama, remember?

Don Hank

In election cycles, Newt Gingrich knows how to talk like a conservative. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency (see link and quotes below).

But when the chips are down, he has proven to be quite at home in Democrat territory. Too much at home.

Now, the GOP establishment (and the “Tea Party,” which they have virtually co-opted) is saying that only the left-leaning Newt can save us from Obama because he can appeal to “both sides of the aisle.”

As Michelle Bachmann pointed out in the debate, Obama is so weak the Democrats are thinking of replacing him, and the notion that Obama can’t be beaten is patently false. It would be more plausible to say he can hardly win against a warm body.

This election cycle, more than any time in recent history, we don’t have to resort to a centrist or “moderate.” A conservative can win. So it isn’t the lefties and moderates who will determine the direction our country takes in 2012. It is you.

Now look, Greece and Italy, two bankrupt nations, were just forced to accept new presidents, both of whom are big central bankers — the group that blew up the global economy — and on top of that, they are members of the Trilateral Commission, a group that — like the CFR — has designs on world government. That is not a democracy, Folks. It is a technocracy of the EU kind, where your vote is meaningless and you are told what to do, where to sit, what medicine you can take (not natural medicine. Monsanto owns you)  and what you are allowed to raise in your garden, if anything.

America, you do not have to don this yoke. You aren’t bankrupt yet. Well, I could be wrong there….  But at any rate, you don’t have to accept a leader who is in lockstep with the NWO gang who wants to micromanage your life more tightly than the CP controlled the slaves in the USSR. As a member of the CFR, Newt is one of them. He will never be one of us, not even close!

Of course, defeating Newt would require a sufficient number of Americans to toss aside the GOP Kool-Aid, stop being spectators and join the fight!

Do you have it in you?

Don Hank

 

Quote:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS–DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti-family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de-constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

 http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-President-Republican-Primary.html

 

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

Islamization and Mexicanization — two designs, same architects

By Don Hank

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

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

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

How are they doing so far?

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a foretaste:
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a REAL grassroots out there?

Ok, the American people showed we could march on Washington in dazzling numbers. We showed we could support a less-leftist candidate than Obama’s favorite.

But if you’re still feeling smug about RINO Scott Brown beating far-left Democrat Martha Coakly, it’s time to come back to earth. Fast.

I told you at that time there would be lots of work to do — and undo. Some got mad and said I was an alarmist. Some said my attitude was not Christian because we should try to convert Brown into a real conservative rather than criticize him. This is how we got to where we are today, incrementally, one RINO at a time, always believing we could make friends with them. Some people just don’t understand it doesn’t work that way and never will. The Left is a ratchet wheel. It only turns in one direction. Proof of that is where we are today, where the world is today, further and further from freedom and enlightenment, dropping year by year in our world ranking in education. Dumb, dumber, going, going, soon to be gone!

I warned you of excessive euphoria over Brown because it was clear this euphoria had shriveled up a lot of “conservative” brains to pea-size and had people actually believing Brown was a Divine Gift — one of the fatal flaws of the false Christianity that inundates our churches.

We had been warned by cooler heads that Brown had voted with the “liberals” in the Massachusetts Senate (need I remind you most are to the left of Hugo Chavez) 91% of the time and was openly pro-abortion — despite the totally unearned and disgraceful endorsement he got from MA Citizens for Life.

Ok, the “conservatives” have proven they can elect a left of center RINO to the Senate. But don’t forget that the Democrats were no doubt relieved to hear Brown say, shortly after his election, that he will not be voting with the Republicans on a routine basis.

Does Brown need to say more to convince his voters he despises them?

I am not saying there was an alternative. What I am saying is that his election can be expected to have a RINO-boosting effect, particularly for McCain, and the GOP are already trying to make hay of it. Brown is now busy campaigning for Mr. Amnesty-Open Borders John McCain. If McCain re-takes his Senate seat, that will spell a huge loss for the grassroots because it will mean that “conservatives” have fallen into the psychological trap set by the elitist GOP leadership. Here is the setup:

1–Convince the grassroots that “they” succeeded in electing Brown, and that

2–Brown is a conservative

3–Have this newly minted “conservative” Scott Brown support John McCain and other RINOs for high offices

Please bear in mind that the grassroots has yet to score a real victory in the tea party anti-Obama movement. The real winners so far are the GOP open-borders elite who despise America and couldn’t give a rap about you and your job security and personal secutiry. They have at least 2 things going for them:

1–The Brown win, which only seems like a victory for many of you, and

2–The phony news that joblessness has sunk to below 10%.

The Brown “victory” only serves to give you false hope that things will be different from now on, and the phony figures from the Obama administration are intended to make you forget that open borders and amnesty are deadly prospects that can take us further down the path to economic ruin (we have forgotten that millions of the subprime mortgages that poisoned the world economy went to illegal aliens). BTW, I call those figures phony because the rise corresponds mostly to government jobs, which are in fact a drag on the real economy and far from bringing in needed tax dollars, they cost the taxpayer more money. I also say they are phony because they do not include the workers who have given up on job hunting. Economist Jerome Corsi recently estimated the true unemployment rate at over 20%.

So if you think the war is over, it has only just begun. So be like Gideon’s soldiers and keep an eye on that weapon, Soldier! You will need it.

JD Hayworth may not be an exemplary candidate to unseat McCain, but he is anti-invasion. He does not want to outsource your job to an outlaw who sneaked into your country and wants to stay and eat your lunch. And the GOP elite is scared to death of him. That alone should tip you off.

As such, Hayworth, if he can be taken at his word, represents something infinitely more than just law and order. He represents American sovereignty in a further reaching sense. Our pastors and politicians have told us for almost 20 years that the immigrant is a gift of God and must be treated with the utmost respect. They didn’t tell  you that because they are devout. They told you that because they are far left.

That the immigrant is a person deserving respect is not necessarily untrue, but the devil is in the definition.

An immigrant, traditionally, is a person who comes to our shores with a visa in hand stating he is approved by our government. He has the ability to earn his keep, is not likely to depend on welfare, will obey the law, will be a contributor, or in some cases, will return to his home country once his stint is done.

A person who breaks the law to enter here is not much more than a thief. Yet, our churches (many of which don’t deserve that name) are busy teaching us that there is no such thing as an illegal alien. Some even make sanctuaries out of their churches to hide lawbreakers.  Yet these same pastors would call the police if a stranger surreptitiously entered their homes late at night. To put it diplomatically, they are rank hypocrites.

But sovereignty is much more than just wanting to have protected borders. A politician today who cares about the sovereignty of our country is a rare jewel. A chilling number of high-placed politicians, like McCain, are members of the CFR, a group that is seriously intent upon not only erasing borders but also dragging you into supranational government intended to replace the national one. If you want to know why that is a problem, ask anyone in Europe, where national “governments” are reduced to mere rubber stamps of the European Union, which is nothing but a wealth redistribution enforcer. It practices a unique form of communism under color of law, keeps allowing a constant influx of Third World immigrants, many of them common criminals, writes and enforces increasingly anti-Christian and anti-freedom policy and is increasingly hated by ordinary people, who have absolutely no say in all of this.

Already the EU is talking about not only taxing the internet (Europe is now in control of the Net!) but also issuing licenses for internet use.

Now is the time to show grassroots muscle because tomorrow may be too late. We have not made a move yet that is outside the scope of the elitists’ plans. They think they have us just where they want us.  And if we can’t succeed in unseating McCain, then they are absolutely right!

BTW, a lot of you probably think I sit around most of the time scratching my head wondering what to write for Laigle’s Forum. That’s not quite how it works. My readers send me stuff that is important and I just say what I think about it, off the top of my head. I don’t have to sit around wondering what to write next. Quite to the contrary, I sit around and think “now, which of those ideas do I postpone to address this urgent issue.”  For instance, here is something that just came in as I was thinking about what a horrible bully McCain is. It is unbelievable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0b1TRt-Cn8

Ok, please read what Alex Isenstadt says in the article below about McCain and his bullying tactics to keep Hayworth from defeating him. If you are from Arizona, kindly forward a link to this article to all your friends and family. Tell em friends don’t let friends vote for bullies.

John McCain turns up heat on J.D. Hayworth

By ALEX ISENSTADT | 1/26/10 4:45 AM EST
Updated: 1/26/10 3:37 PM EST

One year after seeing his presidential ambitions extinguished in an overwhelming defeat, Arizona Sen. John McCain is launching a scorched-earth campaign aimed at incinerating a reelection challenge from J.D. Hayworth, the conservative former Arizona congressman and radio talk show host.

McCain is attempting, with a series of hardball tactics, to cut Hayworth down before his campaign even gets off the ground. He’s mounted a concerted effort during the past month to push Hayworth off the airwaves, run an ad targeting Hayworth on his own radio station and warned him through emissaries that going through with a bid to unseat McCain would be a serious mistake.

One source familiar with the McCain campaign said the offensive was only a preview of things to come, adding, “I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of this.”

The anti-Hayworth effort began in earnest Dec. 15, when Grant Woods, the former Arizona attorney general and onetime McCain chief of staff, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Woods argued that Hayworth, who has used his KFYI drive-time program to blast away at McCain as a soft-on-immigration moderate, was essentially getting free airtime to wage a campaign as a de facto candidate.

Then, last week, McCain campaign attorneys Paul Charlton and Joseph Abate also wrote the FEC to complain that Hayworth was effectively using his radio show as a campaign platform, arguing that Hayworth’s radio parent company Clear Channel “has an obligation not to allow one specific candidate ­ regardless of that candidate’s occupation ­ unfettered daily use of its facilities to promote his candidacy for federal office.” 

Read more.

Enjoy the internet while you can

Major threat to world internet freedom

The Germans are the “free” world’s leaders in censorship. Some of my German contacts estimate that 200,000 Germans are in jail for saying and writing things that are legally considered offensive. Some of these contacts have been jailed for what they sent or posted on the internet!

By way of background, if they are correct, it was the allies, particularly the Americans, who started this trend with “denazification,” but the ideas behind that actually are said to have come from members of the Frankfurt School, a group of German Jewish intellectuals who sought refuge in the US just before WW II and showed their appreciation by spreading propaganda aimed at destroying our culture. They also were given a lot of elbow room in shaping our “denazification” policies.

Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical, was a member of that school, who took it upon himself to help fixate our children on promiscuity and drugs — an important part of the Marxist agenda to weaken America.

Norbert Schneider, a German leftist heading an important European public office in charge of communications, is a Hitler wannabe who wants to require licenses for all internet transmissions of YouTube-like materials. The trouble is, if implemented in his part of the world, this licensing requirement would automatically be implemented here as well. Schneider has too much power, and we either take his away or he takes ours. I think you can understand he needs to go.

No sooner had I receive the article from Prison Planet (excerpted and linked below) than I found, through a search of the German internet, the following:

http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/broadcasting_regulations_to_govern_online_video/

So, folks, it is happening. It is no longer in the talking stage. Neonazi Germany is taking the lead.

Oh, and just to cheer you up: Late in 2009, the US, which once ran the Internet, turned control over to Europe.

Need I tell you that global governance (European Union, UN, NAFTA, CFR policies, and the notion of nationalism, patriotism and even the idea of nations having boundaries at all as  “threats” to world peace) is a serious threat to freedom?

The truth that world government advocates don’t want you to know is that nationalism is not the threat to world peace today. The real threat is international tyranny, and the global elite are the tyrants who are likely to start the next war.

Don Hank

There is just so much happening it is explosive. Before you read the Prison Planet article, check this one out, which came in a few minutes ago:

World Economic Forum calls for licensing internet users

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/agency-calls-global-cyberwarfare-treaty-drivers-license-web-users/

Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan

by DefendUSx February 03, 2010 13:34

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Time Magazine has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people with government permission would be allowed to express free speech.

As we reported earlier this week, during a recent conference at the Davos Economic Forum, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

His proposal was almost instantly advocated by Time Magazine, who published an article by Barbara Kiviat – one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab. It’s sadistically ironic that Kiviat’s columns run under the moniker “The Curious Capitalist,” since the ideas expressed in her piece go further than even the free-speech hating Communist Chinese have dared venture in terms of Internet censorship.

“Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality,” writes Kiviat. “Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?”

Kiviat ludicrously compares the necessity to show identification when entering a bank vault to the apparent need for authorities to know who you are when you set up a website to take credit card payments.

Read more.

The EU wants unlimited fines for Christian speech

EU targets Christianity and free speech

I have sometimes heard American conservatives say that what happens in other parts of the world is of no consequence to us. They get impatient with those of us who look at what is happening in Europe and say “well, they made their bed. Now they must lie in it.”

While it is true that our founders spoke against “entangling alliances” and we should have avoided such a long time ago, the fact remains that the US and Europe are virtually joined at the hip thanks to the alliances our past leaders have established. And thanks in no small part to the blindness of voters in the last presidential election.

Thus we see the European Union poised to destroy Christian speech in what appears to be an imitation of the ACLU this side of the Atlantic. But it is not. Though no monolith, the Left eyes the same ends everywhere. The Fabian Socialists in the UK (Tony Blair was a prominent one) and the Frankfurt School from Germany (now firmly implanted in the US) have the same end: eradicate our culture and replace it with a leftist one in which a self-elected Big Brother decides what we may and may not say and do.

Why should I care what happens in Europe, you say?

The EU is using the same tactics to achieve its ends and has the same goals as our Left. That goal is a one-world leftist government.

Therefore, what happens in Europe will happen here if it has not already, so at the very least, it is a barometer. But worse, the EU is already extending its tentacles to other places. There have been proposals within the EU to widen its reach to Africa and the Middle East. Turkish membership is already being discussed.

And German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries has already called for German control of the internet and the adoption of the German legal system throughout the world. In case you didn’t know, German courts and legislators have all but banned home schooling and have banned “hate” speech on the internet and in public. A pastor was jailed there for preaching an anti-abortion sermon. Frau Zypries has said she wants us to follow suit. Sweden seems to be perfectly  willing.

Anyone daring to say current politicians in Germany are like nazis is violating the law prohibiting the “trivializing of the holocaust.” So if you think the nazilike politicians are nazilike, better keep it to yourself. (I won’t travel to Germany and I believe a travel boycott is warranted. Maybe that is a subject for another post).

At some point, American leftists will make a bid for one-world government, something that US presidents of both parties, now including Obama, and the EU, the UN and the IMF have been quietly working toward for years, including a worldwide currency to replace the dollar.

The Obama government has said it does not want a good crisis to go to waste. Clearly, both parties, which have long been in the hands of one-world advocates (most presidents have been Council on Foreign Relations members, who are indoctrinated to believe that a one-world government is inevitable and desirable for world peace), and the goal will be the same as in the EU.

The EU started out as an economic entity too, supposedly concerned only with creating a giant market place where goods could travel freely, unfettered by trade barriers.

But from the very outset, this economic focus was only part of a bait and switch scheme. The bait is now gone and the switch is in place. The EU now is telling courts and legislatures all over Europe what they can and must do, and as you will read below, the results are a bit on the totalitarian side. This brings us to another implication for the US: beware multinational efforts like NAFTA.

Ireland was a holdout for years, having voted No in a referendum. But the EU insiders pretended to make a few changes to mollify the Irish and called for a new referendum so that the Irish could vote Yes on the supposedly“new”Lisbon Treaty concerning a EU constitution. But the Irish were duped. The “changes” were minimal to non-existent, but the actual document – though hyped by the elite — was more inaccessible to voters than the Health Care bill was to the US public.

And did you notice something?: If Ireland got to vote twice, shouldn’t the other member nations get that opportunity?

Of course. The fact that they don’t is clear evidence that this is pure snake oil.

There is nothing even remotely democratic about having nay voters vote again and again until the elites get the result they want but not allowing yea voters to do the same. Further, groups in the UK and Germany are saying it was illegal. The EU apparently illegally invested public monies from the member states in promoting the Yes vote in Ireland. And Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the EU Commission, also went to Ireland on the tax payers’ dime, in violation of the EU’s own rules. This was supposed to be an internal affair but the unsuspecting Irish were dragged into it by a foreign power.

The only holdout today is Czech President Vaclav Klaus, one of the most brilliant men in Europe, who sees through the hype but is being pressured by the EU and member countries to sign the Lisbon treaty.

All of the above-described shenanigans reflect the way Obamacare is being rammed down our throats.

What does the EU teach us?

I think the main lesson is that the Fabian socialists are winning the world through stealth. They are, de facto, achieving their ends of world domination by “democratic” means. How did they do it? The churches went along, the Vatican went along, the “conservative” politicians went along, and now they are dragging the people along behind them. And many of the people are still under the delusion that this is all to their benefit. But a growing number smell a rat.

And note something curious:
While the EU, like American Democrats and RINOs, are using the “gay” issues like gay marriage, and immigrants of the Muslim faith to gin up sympathy for “victim” groups and thereby develop an artificial pretext for their anti-Christian schemes,
ironically, Russia, once the bastion of the Left, is not having any of this and hardly goes along with any of the EU’s schemes.

A few years back, the mayor of Moscow banned a proposed “gay” parade and made a few arrests when a few hardy souls decided to stage it anyway.

And about a year ago, the Russian Orthodox Prelate made a speech before the EU and told them that Europe lacks morality. He also complained to EU Commission President Barroso of Christian persecution in Europe.

If the mad rush to self destruction can’t be stopped from within, our traditional enemy may become an ally at some point and may become the last holdout for traditional Christianity.

And the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Don Hank

The EU wants unlimited fines for Christian speech

By Graham Wood

I am writing today in regard to the latest example of proposed legislation, which can only be described as horrific, which will be coming forward.   Needless to say it is an EU “directive”.

What is a directive?

A directive emanating from the EU must pass into legislation in an EU member state, although there is some freedom to adapt to national culture and circumstances. Note, however, that such is the sheer scale of EU legislation, not to mention its complexity of language (bureaucratic legalese) that the vast amount is not even known about by our MPs [Members of Parliament], let alone finding time or opportunity to debate in our House of Commons. 
When you read this you will know just how far we have travelled down the road to totalitarianism, and a return to the crudities of religious (Christian) persecution associated with former times (the absolutism of the Stuart Kings and the notorious Star Chamber).  It is proposed (I quote from a small Christian newspaper):

“The provisions are simply appalling, so appalling that most people will not believe what we say until it is too late.  The aim seems to be the destruction of our Christian culture and the removal of any right for free speech on Christian matters.
Of course, it affects other religions, but somehow we doubt whether Moslems and atheists will get the same rough treatment [GW: You bet they won’t – it’s aimed at Christians – and in reality through them, an expression of hatred towards the Saviour].
Basically, if in the province of any service, that is, any public gathering or building or employment terms, you say or do something that another person claims to be offended by, then it is up to you, not the offended party (complainant), to prove that they are not offended.  Should you fail to prove this negative to the court’s satisfaction you are liable to pay compensation to which no upper limit is fixed!
All sorts of people can be affected, not just hoteliers, landlords, (almost anyone involved in a public ‘service’), and it could include publishing houses, schools,universities, preachers, doctors, lawyers, and almost any aspect of media transmission.
According to the Christian Institute: “The proposals explanatory notes make it clear that churches will be forced to consider practising homosexuals for youth worker posts, and similar roles if these become law.”

But the implications are far wider than this one example — for the proposals are so loose and vague in definition that it could be a ‘catch all’ for almost anything whereby somebody could claim to be “offended”  
This is dangerous in and of itself as you will know, but it has other severe possible repercussions, for it reverses the historic principle of the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, would be a draconian inhibition of free speech and expression, and freedom of association.
(All in theory protected under our own Constitution and Bill of Rights and later Human Rights Act with which they come into conflict)
Let me give you an example of this heinous “law” in action.

Under existing “Equality” law:
A Christian couple, owners of a small hotel in the UK, had an open discussion in their own premises, a private conversation, with a Muslim guest. The discussion ranged over Mohammed, the person of Christ etc.  The guest left the hotel and later “reported” the conversation to the police, and they in turn charged the couple with a crime (not yet known) because they defended their faith and criticised Islam).
It is extremely unlikely that the charge will be continued or the couple taken to court, but of course the damage has been done. It is the intimidating nature of these laws that will “chill” free speech in almost any context.
Why “unlimited fines,” reserved usually for serious crimes such as robbery, violence, etc? Clearly there is a harsh vindictive determination on the part of the EU and our government to crush any Christian witness in the public square.  (Acts 4 comes to mind “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God – judge ye….”).
Two fine Christian organisations in the UK work tirelessly to defend such cases as above – The Christian Institute, and Christian Concern for the Nation. Both need our prayers and support.
It is no exaggeration to say, as CCFON states, that “This is a recipe for cultural genocide”

SIGN THE PETITION:

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

Afterword:

President Klaus has since caved in to enormous pressure and signed. But my readers are mostly people of faith, and there is still hope that the UK will vote out the current rascals and vote in a new more euroskeptic (anti-EU) government in the spring. Please, therefore, sign the petition to show that ordinary people aren’t buying into dictatorship without a fight.

USA persona non grata in Latin America

Shadow diplomacy

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, December 22nd, 2008

“Monroe must be rolling in his grave,” remarked Julia Sweig, director of the Latin-American program of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), upon learning that the USA was locked out of the Latin America State leaders’ summit in Costa do Sauípe, Bahia, Brazil. The famous 1823 doctrine, which placed the continent out of the range of European powers and made it a sphere of influence of the USA, is dead and buried.

This is the inevitable result of President George W. Bush’s policy of trying to seduce the Latin American “moderate left” and make it a containment wall against the avalanche of revolutionary leftism. There was virtually no one in high Washington DC circles, American big media and the CFR itself who would not consider this policy the pinnacle of universal diplomatic wisdom. The Democrats only complained – a bit – that it was not leftist enough. Republicans reacted with contempt and impatience at any attempt to point out its fundamental flaw.

Since I arrived to the USA in May 2005, I have made speeches in several conservative institutions and handed out dozens of articles to politicians and opinion makers, telling them that ignoring the deep unity of the Latin American left, betting on the possibility of pitting one country against the other by means of trading advantages, was an enormous act of stupidity, if not of deliberate treason that the leftists in the Department of State were nourishing and that the right-wing lackeys refused to see.

Celebrated by the left as a display of “independence,” the distancing of the continent from the USA is far from that: it is wholesale and overt submission to the expansionist strategy of the Russians, Chinese and Iranians. In recent years, the Chinese President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America than George W. Bush, increasing trading and diplomatic relations with several countries on the continent. Mahmud Ahmadinejad already has an invitation to visit Brazil and Russian warships are sailing merrily about in joint maneuvers with Venezuelan warships in an area where such would have been unthinkable some years ago. It is impossible to gauge Russian and Chinese encroachment in Brazilian business through an infinity of frontmen, but, as a rule of thumb, where you read “Spain” construe that as “Russia.” The reintegration of Cuba in the Latin-American community, with no concessions whatsoever in the human rights area in exchange, was celebrated by President Lula as a chief motivation for the summit, even if nothing else would be settled there.

Lula, of whom George W. Bush had high expectations as an essential instrument of American diplomacy to stop the advance of continental communism, is himself, just as much today as since the foundation of the São Paulo Forum in 1990, the great mastermind of Latin-American subversion, something that this summit made clearer than ever.

If, at the same time, he nourishes market economy and international free trade, he follows in this the same guidelines of the Russians, the Chinese and of all the international communist movement: to postpone sine die the socialization of the production means and use capitalist growth itself as a means to build global leftist political power. What Lenin did in Russia is now being applied on a worldwide scale: seduction of capitalists with smooth talk while the political power of the communist movement is increased to the utmost limits.

Accustomed to making the most accurate analyses and predictions and see them received with scornful grins and affectations of Olympic superiority – a classic emblem of ignorant unpreparedness – I recall that as early as 2005, fifteen years after the founding of the São Paulo Forum, by then the almost absolute lord of continental policy, the most enlightened council of the CFR would refuse to believe in the very existence of this organization. One day, some thirty or forty years from now, we shall know whether this display of blindness was the fruit of genuine stupidity or the clever action of enlightened intellectuals. Politics, of course, is a game of disguises. But one cannot handle disguises if one does not keep away from them, firmly anchored in reality. At the end of the day, those who get accustomed to living from disguises end up contaminating themselves with an abhorrent terror of reality: their vain boasting of realism, maturity and pragmatic wisdom is a grotesque pantomime that conceals its own total incapability of effective action. While granting them the illusory power of manipulating shadows within shadows, it changes them into shadows themselves.

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian writer and philosopher who has taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. He currently resides in the U.S., working as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. The author of a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, he is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

America in full suicide mode

America in full suicide mode

Before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked for almost $1 trillion to bail out rich bankers, and then got both parties to cow down to his demand, I would have thought the following article by John Wallace might be an exaggeration. But not any more. It is a missing piece in the puzzle.

It is your patriotic duty to read John Wallace’s article “The Council on Foreign Relations and Tack’s Tackle Shop,” but accompany it with Cliff Kincaid’s article “Wall Street and the rise of Obama.”

BTW, there is a rumor that Henry Paulson is not done with you yet. He may be wanting another $800 billion of your money. You don’t mind, do you? The first bailout was a bargain at only $17,000 per person (some estimates are higher). Bailouts! Get em while they’re hot!

Why do I now firmly believe in the world banker-CFR conspiracy that once seemed too outlandish even for a work of fiction?

Because, as Wallace’s article shows, these richies and world-governance fanatics have been working feverishly in both parties and having their way with them, openly and obviously, for many years for the purpose of destroying our country. A while back I wrote a column for Laigle’s Forum alerting that Mike Huckabee, the darling of the evangelical right, had chosen Richard Haass, President of the CFR, as his potential secretary of state. Haass had written an article saying that we need to “rethink sovereignty.” That fits the picture very nicely. The bankers and social engineers who control us need a central government to finish the job of killing your patriotism (England is only a few years ahead of us: people are getting arrested for flying the Union Jack in Muslim neighborhoods). It is very uncomfortable for them to have to deal with so many splintered governments. Sovereignty is just in the way and must be shipped off like an old parent to a nursing home. They have gotten their wish in Europe. The whole turkey is on the table there, ready to carve. But they need the NAU and the Amero. Clues abound: The secretive three way conference Bush attended a few years ago, the Mexican truck highway, open borders, amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens, and the elephant in the room: complete silence on immigration by the media and the presidential campaign (McCain was one of the amnesty deal makers last time around). And now, the bailout, the totally useless bailout that can’t budge the stock market. And finally, the absence of any new policy on banking, even though the old policy of putting social justice ahead of good banking practice was suicidal. Oh, and I almost forgot: America elected as its president one of the chief actors in enforcing the banking policy that destroyed the banks, throwing the blame on the free market that gave us the banks in the first place.

Did any of you notice that yesterday on CNN, when a desperate-looking Henry Paulsen was presenting his idea to bail out Citigroup on the pretext that credit was hard to obtain, one of the sponsors was a credit company offering low-interest credit to the viewers? At that very moment, my junk mail box was full of offers for cheap credit and low-interest credit cards, and my wife and I get a ton of junk mail every week offering us low-interest or zero-interest credit. My bank admitted they will give me all the credit I want because I pay back my loans. So what credit crisis?

Can anyone guess what the government is really talking about when they warn of a credit pinch? Why, it is really easy to figure that one out if you consider the socialist Zeitgeist: they mean that if you don’t bail out the banks, they will no longer be able to lend money to those poor unfortunate people who want to buy things they can’t afford and who, until just recently, couldn’t get credit because they were a bad credit risk, spent money like a drunken sailor, reneged on their debts and will continue to renege on their debts until the American tax payer turns blue and gasps his last. Irresponsible people need shiny Christmas presents too, and if they don’t get them this year, why, Christmas may just become extinct. Shysters in Washington, the media, and the “Christian” Left (which now means mainstream evangelicalism) have conned you into believing that banks must serve, first and foremost, a “social purpose,” and then do sound banking if there is any time left for it. But good banking practice and safety are off the table now, just as border safety and immigration enforcement have been off the table for years. We are staring down the barrel of a deadly Revolution in the form of a tectonic plate shift that has taken us far out into the ocean and most of us still think we are in America. Friends, look behind you and wave goodbye. That vanishing dot on the horizon was your country!

The banks now are hell-bent on lending to the irresponsible much in the way an evil perverted fool would offer booze to a recovering alcoholic. And the pubic bought into the notion of bailing out everyone but the tax payer. We hardworking, longsuffering, decent responsible people – the few who are left – are now forced at gunpoint to sacrifice our happiness, our safety and our future, and that of our children, for a bunch of lazy, spoiled-rotten free loaders with an entitlement mentality on steroids.

Friends, America is in suicide mode and no one is paying attention. I fear the worst.

PS: Articles like this never get done writing themselves. I just was alerted to the below-linked article where Lord Sterling says that the Rockefellers are benefitting from the bank crisis. If anyone has any information on this — whether it is true, how they benefitted, etc — I would appreciate your posting it in the comments section appearing under this article. Thanks!

http://www.ukcolumn.org/2008/11/20/cash-for-honours/

Donald Hank

 

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND TACK’S TACKLE SHOP

by John Wallace

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business. It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop. When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on. The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men. We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR. Continue reading