A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

 

by Don Hank

 

A libertarian who says he is more constitutional than the rest

 

Before you read this, check out this video.

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

Ok, here’s what I saw when I viewed it.

I was impressed by Ron’s observation that defending individual property would have been a more effective approach to combating pollution than making federal environmental safety laws. This may be a simplistic notion, but Ron does at least think outside the box. (They say Newt is “smart” too, but that was last week).

He also said he would save $1 trillion a year. That was a major promise, and if you’re focused on the economy, it carries a lot of weight. A promise that just might win an election on its own.

On the Constitution, he knows the original document well and basically understands states’ rights.

On the other hand, what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.

Here is what I heard:

Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.

Partly true. But if there were no seatbelt laws, the insurance companies would have to insure the idiots who don’t use them at the same cost as the smart people who do. No one would say to their insurance agent, when asked: Nah, I don’t believe in seat belts.

Insurance rates would have to go up because there would be many more people injured and killed in accidents. That would affect us all. This is libertarianism gone amok. On the other hand, would these deleterious effects be anywhere near as significant as the effects of not stopping the runaway spending by government? And Ron promises to do that.

Narcotics. Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves. Unfortunately, when people fall into drug use, they do things that hurt not only themselves but others and they cost agencies like the police and social assistance and charitable agencies a whole lot of money – for example, when users, especially addicts, steal to get drug money, or perpetrate violence due to a state of stupefaction and a subduing of conscience. I had shown that the libertarian take on drug use legalization is nothing but pure propaganda:

http://laiglesforum.com/cato-portugal-drug-study-based-on-false-government-data/2602.htm

Ron is wrong on this issue. But again, could drug use cost more than the current runaway spending by government? Maybe not.

Gay marriage? He didn’t use the word, but we all know what part of the interview that was and we heard him say he was bored with the subject.

What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times. It is part of cultural Marxism, the original purpose of which was to prepare the ground for economic Marxism. Thus, ironically, while paying lip service to the free market, libertarians like Ron may well indirectly contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.

Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.

Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam. Now, assuming Paul is not part of the elites that want to import hordes of Muslims to our shores, that may be a moot point. But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?

His idea that Middle Eastern dictators like Ahmadinejad deserve our “friendship” (not mentioned in the interview) could also be a problem. Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them.

Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn. If this position is derived from the Constitution, then it is not a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.

This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness. You don’t even have to know the Bible to understand that.

Those are some of the blemishes.

On the other hand, if Ron is willing and able to make good his campaign promises, he may turn out to be the best enemy the Fed and their cronies could ever have, and hence, no doubt the best friend we the people could have in combating a runaway Congress bent on spending us into oblivion. He could perhaps turn out to be another Andy Jackson and send the bankers packing. But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction. So is he just a talker, like Obama? Or will he, at age 76, have enough energy, mental clarity or will left to roll up both sleeves and fight as promised?

No doubt the US would still be standing after a Ron Paul presidency.

No doubt most people would still be using seat belts.

No doubt most marriages would be traditional ones.

Ron’s ideals are not all my ideals. But then a $15 or 16 trillion debt is even further from my ideal because it is a direct threat to our existence. And it is the reality we live with.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

RINO Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

RINO Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

Was Steve Jobs an example of American exceptionalism?

Sodahead wants you to think so. Read this and then take their poll.

by Don Hank

Sodahead wants us to think of Steve Jobs as an example of American exceptionalism and their readers seem convinced that he was, as their poll shows:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/steve-jobs-has-died-was-he-an-icon-for-american-exceptionalism/question-2202383/?link=1969583&uuid=0da4ddf2760946d8971a06b44c9becf1

But in fact, he is one of the best examples of a corporatist. 91% of his donations were to the democrats, as we see here: http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php

and he strongly supported gay marriage to stay on the good side of the radical Left. Look, if Steve had come out strongly in support of the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman back when “gay” marriage became the rage, his business would have come to a screeching halt immediately. I know how this works better than most. My brother in Christ Julio Severo lost his ability to receive donations through PayPal because he supported this now-obsolescent definition that was unquestioned for millennia in every region and every culture of the entire world.

Why would Steve support the Democrats, who clearly hate free market economics and strongly favor Keynesianism? Because no major corporation can succeed on its own any more, and Steve knew that he would not get to first base in business without Democrat support. If he had succeeded without government acquiescence and support, that would be real free market capitalism. But there is no longer a free market. Corporations depend on government to pave the way to riches for them. Those who don’t go the way of Gibson Guitar Corporation.

One hand washes the other. Corrupt government supports corrupt business.

There is nothing exceptional about Steve Jobs. He was just another rich oligarch who knew how to stay on the good side of the corrupt power base.

Please take the Sodahead poll and leave a comment as you are led to.

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Continue reading

Conference Calls for Defense of Family through Film and Culture

Anthony Horvath, a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries which in turn is an apologetics organization with a unique bent:  it aims not just to defend the Christian faith through evidence and argumentation, but by influencing the culture through the arts.

Their second annual online apologetics conference has a more narrow emphasis:  a defense of Biblical marriage and the family through film, video, and movies.  After all, the family is constantly being undermined in our movies and sitcoms.  Homosexuality is being normalized right beneath our noses, and with it gay ‘marriage.’  The defense will have to be mounted not just at the political level, though.  We’ll have to fight fire with fire.  And, as it happens, Christians were never supposed to abandon the arts to secularists, anyway.

Please take the time to check out the conference home page:  http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/

Since the conference is held online, you can participate from anywhere around the world.  We look forward to seeing you there.

More info:

Keynote:

(Topics, if listed, are tentative)

  • Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, and columnist for World Magazine.  Website.  Topic:  “Cultural Apologetics.”

Others:


“A picture is worth a thousand words.”  Whether this is good or not, it is the reality.  Today, attitudes and beliefs are often shaped by the things we see and the movies we watch.  For some Christians, this would prompt them to consider withdrawing altogether from our media rich society.  However, movies, music, art, and literature are all expressions of human creativity- and humans, though fallen, still are made in the image of the Creator God.  Our artistic endeavors bear witness to our created nature and therefore have the potential to open eyes, hearts, and mind to the nature of the Creator.

Read the Rest

There’s no future in history

By Don Hank

The people behind the progressive agenda (at least the homosexual aspect of it) believe science supports homosexual behavior, proposing, for example, the existence of a ‘gay’ gene. After years of fruitless research, they were ultimately forced to admit that no such gene exists.

But science is not the only discipline they marshal to their support.

One of the congressmen who voted for the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” said those who voted his way were voting on the “side of history.” In other words, they believe that past history, where marriage was exclusively defined as being between a man and a woman, is tending toward a brave new world where that old definition will be scrapped definitively.

Of course, the same Far Left that wants to sell this snake oil is simultaneously importing millions of Muslims into the West — people who will never accept the gay agenda and who, if we can believe what they say, will go thru the rest of history persecuting homosexuals.

This idea that history foreordains “progressive” ideas is what the Bolsheviks believed and taught when they set about destroying Russia with their ill-starred revolution.

Starting with the chiliastic socialists in the 12th Century, Leftists have always believed they know how history will turn out and that the predicted happy ending is in line with their ideology — not because history is actually headed in that direction, but because they wish it were and wishing is tantamount to fact.

It always fails but that makes no difference at all to them. Far Leftists are religious fundamentalists. You know: Marx said it, I believe it and that settles it. They have never gone an iota beyond that line of thinking in all of these years of skating from failure to failure. The bigger the failure, the more steadfastly they cling to their creed.

They are, for example, relying on this reverse reading of history to prove that the world is predestined to live under supranational governments, paramount of which is the EU, a dictatorship that is starting to show cracks as the euro zone crumbles.

Global warming is another of their failed theories. But never mind, they can just point to the kind of weird weather patterns mankind has been experiencing for millennia and cry: “Climate change! We’re all going to die unless you stop driving cars and pay carbon taxes.”

One of the most important jobs we have in educating people is to remind them that history is the sum total of recordings of the past and does not include the future. Folks, let’s teach our children that we can’t predict or steer the future and that history is whatever God wants it to be.

It seems absurd to have to say so, but that is exactly what Americans need to learn now before it is too late.

Past history is on our side, proving common sense conservatives right time and time again.

And future history?  There’s no such thing. But when it comes, it will prove us right again.

Further reading:

http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/lectures/lecture-transcripts/141-the-structure-of-the-revolutionary-mind.html

European Court imposes immorality on Russia

The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West’s political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow “gay” parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of “human rights” in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians. 

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can’t see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls.  If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of “interdependence” that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism.  However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the “enlightenment” began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the “grassroots homosexuals” defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime’s KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China’s refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren’t afraid of sheep.

copyright© Don Hank, M.A. in Russian Studies

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/russia-the-teacher-we-ignore/15.htm

“Same-sex marriage?” There is no such thing!

 by Don Hank 

We now know that a judge activist in California has taken it upon himself to change the definition of marriage. This action on the part of the judge is, sadly, accepted in the media through their use of a fallacious term: “to strike down.”

As Gregg Jackson points out, the idea of “striking down” laws makes judges lawmakers, and our media, even on the right, have contributed to the social acceptance of this fallacious notion.

But there is another more basic aspect to this “same-sex marriage” issue that we all have been missing.

First of all, let me establish my credentials to discuss this issue as an actual expert. I am a linguist (specifically, a technical translator – previously a language teacher) by profession. God has been kind enough to enable me to learn to read over 20 languages, all of them natural ones (in contradistinction to Esperanto, for example).

Now, in all 600+ of the world’s languages, there is a word equivalent to “marriage” in English, and in all cases, without exception, this word means a union between a male and a female. In a few cultures, polygamy is allowed, and marriage can therefore be between one person of one sex and several of the other. But in all cases, the marriage is between one sex and the other.

Now what is natural language? It is a code system devised naturally over time – by the mother of all invention – so as to enable effective communication between human beings in the performance of myriad cooperative tasks. Among natural languages, there are none that have been devised by governments and higher agents. One’s status has never allowed anyone to override the will of the people in constructing or modifying language. In other words, even kings have traditionally had no role in shaping language. Thus language is the last bastion of democracy in the world, so if we give it up, we are truly throwing in the towel once and for all and placing our heads dutifully on the chopping block like Perdue’s chickens. We are the people and we must learn to hold to traditional natural definitions, because we are by definition the sole legitimate shapers of language.

Although the California judge has declared unilaterally that a man and a man can now be “married,” he has overextended his authority in so declaring. He may have the right to decide many things, but he may not redefine natural language. It is simply beyond his purview.

No judge is granted, under the Constitution, the right to change natural language. The only reason some think we can have “same-sex marriage” is because the public has foolishly, and gullibly, accepted this recently coined term, which contradicts the commonly accepted definition of marriage, namely the idea that marriage must necessarily be between a man and a woman. Otherwise it is not marriage, and it cannot be referred to in law as marriage as long as it falls outside this original, natural definition.

For example, women are allowed to have hysterectomies in America. But does a man have the right to a hysterectomy?

Think about it. Do you as a male have that right?

No. Why? Because you are being denied your Constitutional equal rights?

Not at all. It’s because the definition of hysterectomy does not apply to you due to your anatomy. The “liberals” (another word grotesquely redefined) could issue a court decision granting that right, but no matter what the surgeon did to you under that new “right,” it would not be a “hysterectomy.”

In other words, the issue is not equal rights for homosexuals. Rather it is whether or not government has the right to tamper with our language against the people’s will. Just as a judge may not grant a male the “right” to a hysterectomy for practical reasons, so he may not grant two persons of the same sex a “marriage,” and for the same reason: anatomy.

If enough media outlets floated and defended the idea that laws and judges do not have the power to change language, which is by definition an instrument of communication arising solely from the people’s usage (nota bene: it was the people of California who decided the definition in a referendum), then this whole idea of “gay” “marriage” would shrivel up and blow away.

Why no one has noticed this obvious fact is absolutely beyond me.

The definition of words is paramount in a society of law, because all of law – which is nothing but a meaningful assemblage of words – is reliant on definitions.

If we continue to allow definitions to mutate under the influence of a tendentious leftwing media, education system and government intent upon unraveling millennia of culture, as we have done for at least a half-century, we will just continue to lose our culture and eventually become slaves to the new wordsmiths of change.

All of culture – like law – ultimately boils down to definitions. The culture changers on the Left know this much better than most, and we have allowed them to steal our definitions of Christianity, decency, morality, pro-life, human rights, sex roles, and now marriage. And all because no one was paying attention.

Maybe conservatives think the idea of preserving the definitions of words is too abstract and egg-headed to be of any use.

If so, they are dead wrong, and eventually they will be wrong dead.

Let me kick off this new war strategy by being the first to state unequivocally:

Government does not have the right to redefine words in a natural language such as English.

I therefore hereby deny the existence of “same-sex marriage.” There can be no such thing, ever.

If enough of you start saying this, often, to friends, family, co-workers and anyone you speak to on this subject, and really believing it in your hearts, the Left will have to give up this important part of its endeavor to undermine the family.

Stop being wishy-washy enablers. Become effective challengers.

Subscribe to Laigle’s Forum:

http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1

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.

Tony Perkins, tell the truth

http://www.tonyperkinstellthetruth.blogspot.com/

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Tony Perkins, isn’t it time to come clean regarding your continued support for pro-abort, pro-sodomy Romney?

From: “Conservatives For Truth”
…an ad hoc group including Steven Deace, Gregg Jackson, Dr. Earle Fox, Phil Magnan, and John Haskins (see affiliations below) and others

Ninety-five legal authorities, social conservative leaders, writers and radio hosts and other public persons are listed below. Each affirms here (or has previously affirmed in their own words) some or all of the disturbing content of this letter. Signatures of countless state-level and grassroots leaders have not been listed in the interest of brevity.

Mr. Perkins, as President of one of the largest Christian pro-family organizations
in the country,The Family Research Council, you have repeatedly ignored former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s far left-wing record publicly claiming to donors that Romney is a “friend to the pro-family movement” and are featuring him as a speaker this coming weekend at the FRC “Values Voters Summit” in Washington D.C.
How can you reconcile your claim,Mr. Perkins, that Romney is a “friend to the pro-family movement” with his actual anti-family, anti-life record fully documented here?

Read more

Stop supporting evil in high places

Stop supporting evil in high places

 

The following is an article published in the American Spectator in 2005, but the ideas it contains have largely been ignored since then, as “Christian” groups continue to use the language of the Left to support unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and to confer respect to lazy, ignorant, ambitious and/or evil politicians who do not deserve your respect. We should have learned our lesson since Roe v Wade but have learned nothing, instead following the lead of the ungodly in churches and Christian organizations that claim to be helping but side with the enemy.

John Haskins, whose web site The Underground Journal, I highly recommend, is a warrior who has never been known to compromise with the Left. He and colleague Gregg Jackson pointed out some time ago that same-sex marriage has never in fact been legal anywhere because the Supreme Court judges of states whose courts supported it do not have the support of the Constitution in so doing and therefore do not deserve your respect and the legitimization you confer to their decisions. These officials are nothing but usurpers, their deeds are unlawful and as long as you honor them with your respect, you are an accessory to their crime. Haskins believes that “pro-family” and “Christian” groups make matters much worse when they plead cases from the standpoint that these leftist judges are legitimate and their decisions are legally binding. The mantra is “we must avoid a constitutional crisis at all costs,” but the crisis is already here and was caused by the judges themselves. So what this translates to is: “we must avoid resolving the constitutional crisis.” A constitutional challenge is precisely what these lawless judges need to keep them in check, but everyone just follows the lead of the pseudo-conservatives and “moderates.” The result so far is a Marxist “president” who cannot prove he meets the qualifications to be president – thanks to a spineless Supreme Court that will not honor any challenges, no matter how reasonable and well-founded they are, and thanks to a populace that has been indoctrinated by schools, universities and media into accepting the unacceptable.

I have always argued that public officials have no right under the Constitution generally to change natural language and specifically to tamper with the definition of the word “marriage” as it has existed for millennia in all world cultures – not just Christian ones. In natural languages as they have evolved everywhere, independently of each other over the years, the equivalents for the English word “marriage” have always referred to a union between a man and a woman. Although in some Muslim countries and in the Mormon community, there has been a provision for men marrying more than one woman, in no traditional community has there ever been a provision for marriage between same-sex partners, which has universally been regarded as an absurd notion. It still is absurd and always will be, but the International Left has decided to carve out a new “victim” group, ie, homosexuals, and has invented the notion of “gay marriage” to prop up this group in return for their loyalty. Why the expenditure of so much effort for such a tiny group?

There are several reasons, including the fact that traditional man-woman marriage is an obstacle to the Left’s agenda of controlling children’s minds from cradle to adulthood and beyond, but the main reason is to undermine Christianity, which has traditionally stood in the way of the Left. The ultimate goal is to charge anyone who opposes same-sex unions with a “hate” crime. This effectively criminalizes certain parts of the Bible, opening to door to further-reaching “hate” crimes, for example, banning the mention of hell by preachers.

 It wasn’t until Evangelical groups began promoting the diabolical idea of partnering with government that the Left was able to overcome the religous obstacles to their goals, as witnessed by the fact that close to 30% of young evangelicals voted for Obama last election. In addition, 54% of Catholics also voted for Obama. Without the “Christian” vote, the current rapid erosion of the free market and nationalization of banks and business (both communist policies) would not have happened. The Obama debacle has taken on new significance since the latest WND report that Obama is now filling White House posts with Muslims, some of whom are terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

What can you do? Roundly reject the language of the Left: For instance, don’t ever say or write the words “gay marriage,” “choice” when referring to the murder of the unborn, or “strike down” when referring to laws opposed by the Supreme Courts of states or the US Supreme Court. And do not allow your friends or family to use the newspeak of the Left. These soulless people can usurp power only if we lend them credibility. We have been doing that for too long. Listen: When was the last time your pastor said homosexual marriage and homosexuality are sinful? When has he spoken of a hell to which the lost are destined?

If you can’t remember, then you are probably supporting evil in the form of offerings and tithes. Time to leave. Time to say no. Time to fight or lose everything you love and everything you have always wanted for your children.

Donald Hank

 

No More Striking Down Constitutions

Why are even conservatives afraid to call things by their name?

By John Haskins
Published 11/8/2005 12:05:11 AM

Conservatives contemplating George Bush’s judicial legacy — and his bizarre vision of Harriet Miers among the nine highest potentates in the democratic world — should expect no counter-revolution. True, he promised constitutionalist judges. But talking constitutionalism (like talking Christianity) is easy.

Our governing elite punishes unvarnished clarity about our Constitution. Intellectual honesty, for lawyers, schoolteachers, psychologists, professors and actors, is costly. Most lie low or join the enforcers. Surely even Roberts, Scalia, and Alito see the gap between them and the Founding Fathers, for whom precedent was impotent against the Constitution.

Absurd though it is, only “constitutional” conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal “mainstream” savors precedents they’ve shot down — or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent. But the obvious is hard to see, especially as monumental, abstract questions are addressed in isolation from thoughts of personal advancement. The realm of the mind and methodology that do this are not the pragmatic part that wins court cases, campaigns, and useful friendships. The former withers when neglected for the latter. Even “all star” conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.

Read more.