China sullies Obama at election time

By Don Hank

Chinese leader Wen Jiaobao went to the EU-China summit a few days ago and told the EU he won’t revalue the renminbi upward, and that they should stop “pressurising” China to do so. He said the problem with the euro is the fluctuation of the dollar. That would put the ball in Obama’s court.

To drive home Wen’s point that China won’t take orders, the Chinese leadership recently blanked out all cyber searches in China pertaining to the Nobel prize, which went to a jailed Chinese dissident. And it wasn’t just mention of the dissident that they blanked out. It was the search term “Nobel.” To make sure people paid attention, they threatened sanctions against Norway for its role in the decision, even though the Norwegian government has no known hand in the decision to award the prize.

So why so many slaps in Western faces all at once? If you read between the lines, there really was one main target face, and that was Barack Obama’s.

You may recall that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Obama had to track down his Chinese counterpart, who was deliberately snubbing him. This, coupled with China’s past warning regarding the adverse effects of Obama’s stimulus spending, and now this Chinese stance toward Brussels and Norway, should tell you something.

The Chinese leadership is not just rejecting the West’s praise for one of its dissidents. Much more significantly than that, it is showing its contempt for the arrogant group that granted the unknown Marxist upstart Barack Obama a Nobel Prize but was at a loss to explain why it had done so. Coincidence or not, this indirect but transparent sullying of Obama comes right around election time when Americans are looking to a dazed Obama (who has lost a significant amount of both popularity and cabinet members) for a sign that he can lead.

As I pointed out here, the Chinese leaders have moved safely beyond Marxism, having (barely) survived the murderous ravages of Marxist true-believer Mao. The fact that Obama is enamored of Maoist schemes is almost certainly not lost on them. Yes, technically, they are communists, and Mao is still celebrated, mostly for the sake of his useful idiot followers, but that’s as far as it goes.

This anti-Mao sentiment in the leadership is no secret. As soon as Mao died, Deng Xioaping’s government reversed Mao’s virulent anti-capitalist stance and propagated the slogan “to get rich is glorious.” It even tolerated films critical of Mao’s leadership. (Probably the most powerful and best-made of these is “To Live,” which you can rent from Blockbuster or buy, for example, from Amazon).

The Chinese leadership knows that a man holding the office of President of the United States has no business honoring their disgraced past leader. On a visceral level, I believe they cannot help but resent Obama for admiring the man who almost destroyed their country, and their actions so far have not dissuaded me of this conviction. To the contrary, the Chinese leaders are showing for Obama the same contempt he showed for the Israeli Prime Minister. Politics is, after all, personal, despite the lofty pronouncements of its practitioners. But on a purely pragmatic level, they must be anxious to have Obama replaced by a president less intent on weakening America’s economy through astronomical borrowing and spending – a president who will strengthen their most important trading partner (what can they sell to a poor country?).

The Chinese contempt of Obama is ignored by the power elite in the West because it is not compatible with their diplomatic philosophy, and they are clearly in denial.

Western elites have taught for many years that government should always speak easy and carry no stick but Chamberlain-like appeasement and dhimmitude.

Hence, the US and the EU have, in recent years, trodden easy with China, careful never to rile her leadership.

Obama, while pretty much sticking to this elitist playbook, has departed from it in his China encounters, flush with a false sense of power throughout the West. For example, in February 2010 he blustered that he would get much tougher with China. After all, he is the most powerful man in the world, right? He was cheered like a conqueror in Europe during his campaign. He commanded the attention of the entire Western ruling class, even winning a Nobel without lifting a finger. Can’t the Chinese also plainly see that Obama was a god?

Just as liberal leftists truly believe in Keynesian economics (what Reagan called “voodoo economics” – namely, the doctrine that government can spend itself out of an economic crisis), they just as devoutly believe that anything can be accomplished at the bargaining table that was once won on the battle field, particularly when one is surrounded by a large alliance when facing down a foe.

Thus the reigning principle in Western statesmanship is “strength in numbers” – i.e., the notion that supranational groups like the UN and the EU combine enough synergism and population volume that no single country can resist their efforts.

What they have forgotten is the overriding principle that, all things being equal, there is more power in patriotism, national pride and admiration for a wise and skillful nationalist leader than in a soulless, cultureless union of dissimilar states held together at the top by power lust and self-interest but dangling loose at the bottom, particularly when the leaders of these allied states have intentionally waged a years-long culture war against their own increasingly resentful people.

There comes a point at which people have been so indoctrinated with anti-patriotic propaganda that they ask themselves: Who cares if my side wins? 

That point is now in Europe and soon in America.

Napoleon demonstrated this principle at Austerlitz when, with 70,000 men, he defeated the 90,000 man strong combined forces of 2 Empires, Russia and Austria – and then turned around and defeated the Prussians just to show who was boss.

It will always be this way. Some nations rule, others lose, and when national pride and the will to triumph meet an alliance of forces dissimilar in culture, tongues, and religions, and a vanishing sense of what they stand for, the multicultural alliance had better tread carefully.

There may be strength in numbers, but, as China is teaching us, there is only weakness in diversity.

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/obama-and-mao-a-short-history-lesson/1870.htm

European judge redefines, bans free speech

Geert Wilders to be Prosecuted for “Hate Speech”

by Baron Bodissey

If any one person personifies the resistance against the Islamization of Europe, that person is Geert Wilders. His message is simple, honest, and straightforward: the people of the Netherlands (and other nations) have a right to protect the traditional character of their native countries and demand a halt to mass immigration.

But the forces of Multiculturalism are arrayed against him. The Powers That Be recognize how dangerous he is, and are determined to stop him.

And at last they have found a means to do so, all the while being covered by a fig leaf of legality. According to the BBC:

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression”.

“Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said.

 

Read more.

Republicans threw the election

Republicans threw the election

In the video linked below, hear the Democrats deny in their own words that there was a mortgage lending problem at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. One even cussed out the Republicans who dared to suggest there might be a problem.

Why didn’t McCain mention this?

I think the obvious answer is: McCain didn’t want to offend any of his buds on the other side of the aisle, where he was busy reaching most the time instead of being a Republican.

McCain sort of wanted to maybe possibly be president under certain conditions (to be set by the Democrats).

This is why this swell idea of getting along with everyone wrecked the Republican brand just as it wrecked the financial institutions.

No Republican would defend the free market.

Now there’s no one left to defend the Republican Party. And rich people everywhere, including the rich guys who supported Obama and his socialist worldview, are losing – reportedly the founders of TomTom have lost a million so far.

Watch here.

 

“Gays” reject democracy

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,447744,00.html

 

 

More on making leftists squirm

I have found that one very effective way to deal with leftists is to ask a question they can’t answer or will inevitably answer incorrectly based on a popular misconception, and then to suggest the answer in a cryptic way that he can’t quite comprehend. That makes you the master. Like the lefty I met at the polling place. I asked him what caused the banks to crash.

He said “lack of regulation of the market.” [All lefties say that because they hate the free market].

I said “what about the CRA?” knowing that he had never heard of it.

Then when he drew a blank, I taunted him by saying: “You know [of course he didn’t], the Community Reinvestment Act.”

At this point I had defeated him psychologically because he knew I knew more than he did and my matter-of-factness suggested this was common knowledge —  which in fact, it should be and would have changed the election results had it been.

But you note that I didn’t explain what the CRA was. I didn’t want him to be able to think up some half-baked argument showing that the bank crash was still the free market’s fault. And I also wanted him to be keenly aware that the media and the Dems were keeping him in the dark

I told him it was up to him to look it up and walked away the clear winner — even in his own eyes.

But not only that, I gave him ammunition to use in a conversation with someone else that will make him look good, and on top of that, because he looked it up himself, this has the psychological effect of making him think of himself as “self-taught,” a source of pride that will stimulate him to further study in the future and may eventually moderate his leftist views.

Donald Hank

 

 

My ears are burning…

A pro-Obama, anti-Hillary Democrat blog cites “Laigle’s Forum:

“23 October – the ultra-far-right-wing blog “Laigle’s Forum” shows Berg the meaning of the saying “lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas”. [Quoting Laigle’s Forum:]

Remember that Berg claims to be a Sen. Clinton supporter. Yet these are the people supporting his suit.

“Note that Berg is a Hillary supporter and suddenly the Hillary camp is sounding like they want the Constitution restored. Can you see anything wrong with this picture of the Clinton camp complaining about injustice and lawlessness? The lady who made off with the White House silverware? The president who made a brothel of the White House and then perjured himself? The couple who rudely fired the kitchen help on trumped up charges as soon as they entered the White House, and whom Judicial Watch has been trying for years to indict for a wide assortment of suspected felonies?”

“(Is it just me, or do the tired old smears against the Clintons sound a LOT like the smears that Berg, “TexasDarlin”, and their supporters use against Sen. Obama. Hmmmmm……)”

This citation of Laigle’s is ironic for various reasons, for one thing, because a pro-Hillary blog had also cited an article by me in WorldNetDaily criticizing Obama.

About that “ultra-far-right-wing” epithet, why do Dems cite us if we are nothing but ultra-far rightwingers with whom they supposedly don’t agree with? When we criticize Obama, suddenly the Hillary camp cites us as authorities. When we criticize Hillary, the Obama supporters (in the present case) cite us as authorities but simultaneously undermine our authority with the “ultra-far-rightwing” epithet.

So, how to sort this out? first, thanks for the compliment, I think.

Second, Laigle’s does not bill itself as ultra-right, so where does this come from?

Our site has published articles from writers of different countries around the world who promote the free market and traditional values, particularly Christian traditions.

But wait: during their campaigns, both of the major Democratic candidates (Hill and Obama) have made a big issue out of being Christians themselves. So on this issue, whey don’t they qualify as ultra-far-rightwing”?

Laigle’s Forum has also tended to favor the free market, in keeping with Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations. Smith is regarded as one of the first liberals.

Wouldn’t that make us liberals? Don’t they claim to be liberals?

Strong defense is another rightwing issue. Doesn’t Hillary support that, as she herself said repeatedly in her campaign?

Thus far, we are shaping up as very much like our Democrat counterparts.

The real difference is that we actually support the free market, strong defense and traditional religion, whereas the Left pretends to support them when it suits them for political purposes.

Now that Obama has mesmerized much of our youth into supporting communism, the Left is showing its true colors.

So the main difference is honesty and integrity.

If being honest makes us ultra-far-right, then I say guilty as charged, Your Honor!

BTW, they used to call people like us far right. Now they have added the “ultra.” But this tells us more about them than about us.

America is drifting to the far left, and the names the Left calls us change to match their leftward drift, not our rightward drift. We haven’t drifted.

Donald Hank

 

Spreading Islam through public and Christian schools:

 

By Berit Kjos

Our friend Tom* enrolled his seventh grade son in a local Christian school this year. But he felt a bit uneasy when he saw the new history text. And as he leafed through the pages of World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times (a standard nationwide textbook), his concern grew.

The dramatic images, evocative suggestions and interesting group assignments would probably prevent boredom, but what would his son actually learn? How accurate were the lessons? And most important: What kinds of values would they instill?

Page 4 (in the section on “Strategies”) told students to “Try to visualize the people, places, and events you read about.”[4] With all the inspiring stories and pictures, that should be easy! Group dialogue and peer consensus would help seal those biased impressions! This was not what Tom expected from a Christian school!

Read more here.

 

U.S. may soon accept Sharia Law

Incredibly, in recent days, the U.S. Treasury Department has begun embracing Shariah-Compliant Finance.  Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt has professed an interest in “studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.”  According to a press report out of Saudi Arabia, he has declared that “experts in the Treasury Department are currently learning the important features of Islamic banking.”

Read more here.

 

William Lobdell article:

William Lobdell says he lost his faith and is cashing in on his faithlessness to sell his book. Fair enough. Christians and Jews cash in on what they believe too.

I emailed William and told him our stories are reversed: I lost my faith in Marx after worshipping the Left for 40 years.

But before that I had lost my faith in God when I saw some of the same things he saw that caused Lobdell to doubt. My swing back to faith is partly the product of free will, and the willingness to submit and obey – not to religion but to God. That is a subtlety than I think many atheists haven’t understood.

Lobdell and I agree on one thing: religion in itself is not the way. Jesus Christ agrees with both of us on that. I think Lobdell is confusing religion with God, as I once naively did.

I am negotiating with Lobdell to submit an article to Laigle’s Forum so that we can respond.

Joran wanted to traffic in Thai women?

There is evidence that Joran van der Sloot wants, or wanted, to traffic in Thai prostitutes.

Read about it here.

 

Obama required by SCOTUS to present a birth certificate:

“At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.”

“If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.”

Read more here.

IMPORTANT questions for Islamists and their appeasers

Our readers want to know…

by Donald Hank

The Organization of Islamic Conference now wants to sue people like Geert Wilders simply for his movie quoting the Koran against a backdrop showing actual footage of Islamic violence. And as long as treacherous appeasers wield their power in national governments, the OIC could win. Such censorship of the public has been accomplished in Canada, where religious freedom does not extend to those who disagree with other religions. In other words, where moral and religious equivalency is enforced. That’s right, the religion of post-modernism (=moral equivalency) is the only religion you may endorse in that country if you desire not to be sued, jailed or both. How’s that for freedom in a country that may soon share in the lawmaking decisions of the USA if G.W. Bush and the Globalist goons succeed in foisting the North American Union on us?

But there is a question the defenders of the “Religion of Peace” still need to answer: In a previous issue, I had quoted the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) stating that the then soon-to-be-released film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders will have “serious repercussions which could get out of hand and would be difficult to control.”

In other words, if Wilders insists on showing the world how violent and unreasonable Muslims can be, the OIC, which represents them, threatens that these same Muslims may become violent.

I had pointed out how untenable that position is, since in effect, it expresses both indignation at the suggestion that Islam is violent and at the same time, a threat of violence to those who would dare suggest that it is violent!

Which is it? Are they offended because they are in fact non-violent or are they violent enough to kill and harm people who would suggest this just because they know their behavior won’t bear scrutiny and are sore losers? They seem to want it both ways.

On behalf of my readers, I now ask the Muslim community for an explanation, or at least a position on this.

Specifically:

How can you Muslims leaders, with a straight face, threaten people with violence for suggesting Muslims are violent?

Are you trying to confirm their accusations against you? Or hadn’t you noticed what message you are sending? What’s wrong with sending your co-religionists the message that they can’t afford to provide more support for Wilders’ argument by reacting violently, and that instead Muslims everywhere need to prove to the West that they represent the Religion of Peace?

If you are concerned about your image, please explain how threatening innocent people will help maintain that image. The rest of the world, which you are trying to convert to your “peaceful” way, wants to know.

Of course, the worst offenders are not the Muslims themselves but rather the European appeasers who think coddling bearded babies in bomb belts is the answer to the violence problem.

What strikes me as odd is that the world’s ultimate lesson in the failure of appeasement actually came from Europe itself in the late 1930s. Of course, we need to realize that the European education system has failed miserably to teach history to its young (to the extent that a sizeable fraction of polled products of that system actually think that Churchill was a fictitious character!), and that is probably not a mistake but rather a calculated strategy of the Left. After all, a populace that understands the history of the Left would never want to embrace that failed ideology any more than a seasoned woodsman would want to approach a skunk.

So here is my question for you promoters of dhimmitude in Europe:

If the appeasement approach failed so miserably in England under Neville Chamberlain, while the hang-tough approach was so successful under Winston Churchill, why do you favor the former approach and eschew the latter when confronting another threat to freedom and Judeo-Christian traditions, and yes, to the existence of Jews worldwide, that is remarkably similar to Hitler’s threat?

If it failed before, how do you expect it to succeed this time?

We cordially invite both groups (Muslims and dhimmis) to enter our forum and state their cases. If you are acquainted with Muslims who may be interested in this debate, or if you have a friend who believes in bowing to Muslim censorship demands in the interest of peace, please pass along the link to this column and invite them to post their response in the Comments box below (they will need to be patient. The comment will only show up after it is approved).

We would like to better understand these folks.

Even a no-show would speak volumes, now wouldn’t it?

HOLMEN cross:

My friend Anthony Horvath, whose ads appear at the top and to the right of our columns and whose columns grace our pages from time to time, has a story of a new cross display on public property that seems to be the latest casualty in the war against Christianity.

This is one of multiple examples in our nation of Christian symbols falling prey to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was designed in part to protect religion from government but wound up being appropriated by the Left as an instrument against our godly heritage. An instrument wielded by secularists and atheists to do exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

Read about it here.