A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II

 

by Don Hank

 

Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?

Ron Paul’s scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.

America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the “woman’s right” to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.

Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit  candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.

And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.

Paul’s position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.

 

Is there anyone left?

Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?

Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn’t that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.

Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.

Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:

http://drjudithreisman.org/

I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.

 

But can Bachmann win against Obama?

The GOP wants you to think she can’t and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?

But they are forgetting a few things.

Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:

And now for a little course in Political Science 101: This poll is not of ‘likely’ voters. It included a sample of 500 Pennsylvanians. It was done by PPP which is a democratic polling group. It is notoriously flawed because in past polls PPP has been poorly predictive when identifying Republicans and Republican leaning Independents for the sample. It is also flawed because of its proximity to the general election in November of 2012. Polls taken long before elections are inherently non-predictive of the actual election results.

Added to this is that fact that the poll didn’t even include Bachmann, although she was not trailing Santorum by much, and he was included. It also doesn’t show the fallout of another 6 months of further job losses and other Obama incompetency that  may well make him unable to beat a warm body. Finally, let’s admit that Ron Paul has been successful largely because of his fund raising, and much of his money has come from libertarians, recreational drug enthusiasts and anti-war groups. What would happen if the GOP got behind Michele Bachmann and backed her financially instead of giving her the cold shoulder? Can we admit her poll numbers would rise significantly?

One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.

If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.

A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way – again – is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won’t let us forget.

Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that “Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months.” I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.

At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt’s wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.

Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.

Michele Bachmann is probably their – and our — only chance.

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

Romney is for illegal aliens:

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

Newt is for illegal aliens:

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

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

Ideology bound libertarians look a lot like leftists

Ideology-bound Libertarians look suspiciously like leftists

 

Don Hank

 

Mark Thornton, writing for the libertarian Mises Daily, points out that “drug reform” is a hot issue. By drug reform, he means decriminalization or legalization of drug use.

He writes:

“Political candidates, politicians, former presidents, interest groups, and even the Global Commission on Drug Policy are all calling for drug-policy reform”

He rhetorically asks “why the interest in this reform?” and then answers his own question:

“…. the more important reason for the interest in this issue is economic sense. Drug prohibition is a burden on taxpayers. It is a burden on government budgets. It is a burden on the criminal-justice system. It is a burden on the healthcare system. The economic crisis has intensified the pain from all these burdens. Legalization reduces or eliminates all of these burdens. It should be no surprise that alcohol prohibition was repealed at the deepest depths of the Great Depression.”

 

Mark is as wrong as he can be. Firstly, alcohol does not pose the same problems as addictive narcotics and is not comparable. Secondly, drug prohibition is not the burden. Illegal drug sales and use, and the cartels that commit the crime of selling illegal drugs, are a burden — a burden that is exacerbated by an administration that refuses to stop smugglers. Mark is blaming the victims for the crime. Thirdly, he is relying on false figures released by an incompetent Portuguese government trying to cover up a flawed policy.

The economic burden he mentions is intensified exponentially by our open borders policy and tolerance of illegal immigration. Thousands of Mexicans are now crossing the border into the US with huge shipments of narcotics in vehicles, as shown here, or bales of marijuana strapped to their backs, as shown here.

Yet this same Mark Thornton who advocates legalizing illegal drugs precisely on economic grounds, also criticizes those of us who want to keep illegal aliens out and keep the borders closed for economic reasons – i.e., to protect American jobs in a time of record unemployment. Thus, through convoluted logic worthy of a mental contortionist, he wants us to believe that two of the main contributors to the Western economic malaise are in fact beneficial.

He is right when he states that one main problem with immigration is government largesse extended to them. But it is unrealistic to advocate for illegal immigrants at a time when our welfare state has never been more generous with your money and when jobs have never been more scarce. According to Milton Friedman, whom libertarians like to consider one of their own when such is convenient, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”

In a perfect world, we could open the borders and legalize drugs without fear because no one would use drugs to the extent of causing anyone harm, and immigrants would not be lured by free schools and hospitals and other social assistance but rather by a drive to earn money honestly by the sweat of their brow.

But we don’t have that world – quite the opposite. So why talk about hypothetical policies that might word in a utopia that simply will never be?

But Mark is worse than just a Polyanna. He is either disingenuous or self-deceived when he refers to the Cato report showing that Portugal’s “success” with their drug decriminalization experiment. The fact that it was the libertarian Cato Institute that released the report should raise a red flag because their clientele all support drug legalization/decriminalization and have already bought into the highly suspect hypothesis that drug liberalization will automatically redound to everyone’s good. They should also raise an eyebrow at the thought that it was the nearly bankrupt Portuguese government that released the fishy-sounding facts on which it rests – a government that has a vested (financial) interest in wanting the world to believe in it now that the risk rating agencies no longer do.

This was my line of reasoning when I set about doing an online search for a web site in Portugal that would shed some light on this. Now not every American can search the foreign press in a variety of languages, and this language barrier is one of the setbacks for US scholars and journalists. But because of my translation background, non-English foreign reports are one of my specialites and a good reason to visit Laigle’s Forum, where language is not a barrier to accessing truth.

What I found in my Portuguese-language search (I would never have found it in English) went beyond my wildest dreams, and I published a preliminary article on it here.

Some of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, followed by my analysis thereof, are found here:

http://laiglesforum.com/2634/2634.htm

Ninth Circuit poisoning the well

 Ninth Circuit “legalizes” voter fraud, undermines all authority

by Don Hank

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof.  The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

So if you want to poison the well, be careful where you drink.

copyright©2010

Further reading:

http://blogs.forbes.com/walterpavlo/2010/10/26/u-s-more-corrupt-in-2010/?boxes=financechannelforbes

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-10-2010/115537-obama_mexicans_vote-0/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=221161

The border crisis and cognitive dissonance

The border crisis and cognitive dissonance

by Don Hank

The lack of response and negative response of many Americans to my recent article on the dangerous crisis at the US-Mexican border signals the existence of a sweeping epidemic of the mental disorder known as cognitive dissonance.

We often think of cognitive dissonance in terms of two different world views that one and the same person entertain. A well-known example is the compartmentalization practiced by some Christians who believe in Darwinism on a secular level and the Genesis version of creation on a religious level.

But in the case of the West, a much more serious and virulent form of cognitive dissonance frequently occurs in the minds of citizens whose “background noise” in the form of media reports and opinions, political activism, make us deny what our eyes and ears perceive. In other words, the victim is not only contending with 2 distinct and contradictory world views, which can cause neurosis. He or she is actually trapped (brain washed, we could call it) into believing something that his senses unerringly tell him is not true.

The most amazing example of this more radical form of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed was when, in the midst of the “global warming” craze, a record late frost occurred in my area in PA and not only did the media not report it, but many of the locals with whom I spoke, even as the frost lay on the ground in full view, appeared visibly nervous and edgy when I mentioned that I had never seen frost this late in over 65 years living in the area. Of course, neither had they, but they couldn’t say so because they were supposed to devoutly believe in global warming — and not as the result of scientific study but as a result of fervent devotion of a mystical type not to be confused with brain activity. The belief would save humankind from extinction if only we believed fervently and acted upon our beliefs by accepting whatever remedies the government and the Self-Elect recommended. Praise Gaya!

The very same phenomenon is at work when people mention things like the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by illegal aliens. Many absolutely can’t process this information and exhibit an evasive response when confronted with it. They literally dodge anyone who mentions it. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they have been conditioned. They dare not entertain such dissident thoughts, let alone discuss the issue with anyone. They not only feel guilty about having this information, because it contradicts the received wisdom that all Hispanics are victims and we evil rich Americans are their tormenters and are responsible for all ills that befall them. They also are deathly afraid that an activist could be lurking somewhere waiting to pounce on them for the indiscretion of stating a simple fact. None of these Hispanics who sin, so goes the narrative, can be held accountable for their actions. If they smuggle drugs, it is our fault because some Americans use drugs. If they rape someone it is because American women are racists who deny them love. If they join violent gangs it is because we xenophobic Anglos reject them and their language, forcing them to seek solace among their own kind.

I hope and pray I am wrong, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that cognitive dissonance is now an epidemic of such enormous proportions in our country that, if someday Hispanics swept through middle class neighborhoods burning, pillaging, raping, murdering and shouting racial slurs against whites and blacks alike, a sizeable proportion of the residents of these neighborhoods would actually feel guilty about being “rich” and white (no matter that the Hispanics hated the blacks as well) and would ask: Where have we gone wrong? What can we do to show them we are their friends?

If my suspicions about that are correct, this could be the end of the line.

Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

It’s not a party, it’s World War III

It’s not a party, it’s World War III

Don Hank

We Americans keep forgetting that America is really just a microcosm that reflects a nearly-uniform situation existing throughout the Western world. Not only does the elite extend across party lines in Ameria, but our elite is part of a much bigger World Elite that exhibits the same identical behavior everywhere, the aim being to destroy what is left of Christian conservative culture and replace it with Marxist social chaos. You know numerous examples of how that is done. Just think ACLU.

One of the main weapons used against us is virtually unlimited immigration. Our country is being flooded with illegal immigrants, who are portrayed in the media as victims. In the street and in our economy, we see the opposite: American workers stripped of jobs, hospitals forced to donate a high percentage of services to illegal aliens, federal prisons with disproportionately high alien populations, foreign gangs of juvenile delinquents, cities and states (CA comes to mind) going bankrupt from the enormous burden of services funneled to undocumented aliens who don’t pay their share of taxes.

But this elitist attitude that drives unlimited immigration and the political correctness that forbids us to discuss it honestly, or even uses the courts to oppose laws like that in Arizona aimed at controlling the crime, drugs, economic chaos, soaring unemployment, imminent bankruptcy, etc, is not specific to America.

Things are worse in the UK and Germany, for example. And most of us can recall the Muslim riots in Paris a few years ago. And as a footnote: Panama is also toying with an amnesty for its illegal aliens, mostly Chinese.

Which brings us to a recent report from Germany about a school that has been taken over by Muslims. The remarkable thing about the report is that it was made by a mainstream news outlet in a country where it is all but forbidden to speak openly about the ills of Islam. Things are coming to a head in Europe just as they are here, where Americans in state after state seek legal means to stem our own immigration tide. The elites, who suffered a major setback in the arena of global warming, and had their foolhardy Marxist lending policies turn into a worldwide financial disaster, are now being forced into a corner in the area of immigration as well, as their own media confront a situation that can no longer be ignored.

My translation of the report summary follows (my comments are in brackets):

Fighting in the classroom — German students in the minority

For 45 minutes, ARD [a German TV network] showed the everyday reality in a high school in Essen [in North Rhine-Westphalia]. A daily reality of brutality, a dark parallel world in which Germans are terrorized and Islam sets the tone.

156 students, 70% Muslims. Turks, Lebanese, Kurds. Principal Roswitha Tschueter says: “The violence is coming mostly from the Lebanese students.”

Sebastian (16) is constantly beaten up by fellow students [the author didn’t quite have the nerve to say “Muslim” here]. His mother says: “They even beat him with a chair.”

Hulia (17) converted to Islam. Her Palestinian boyfriend says: “She doesn’t party, doesn’t wear miniskirts. German girls have too much freedom” [true, but if the German society allowed Christians the same freedom of expression as they do Muslims, Christian morals would flourish again. Germany bans home schooling and often removes kids from Bible-believing Christian homes under the pretext that they are creating a “parallel society.” This is nothing but an extension of Hitler’s ban on proselytizing. But it’s not only Germany. Throughout the West, we are taught that Christianity is not to be used to impose any sort of morality. “Church” leaders have soft-pedaled the moral aspects of Jesus’ teachings to the point that today’s “Christians” deny that there is any universally valid moral teaching at all – particularly as relates to sex. In a society where Christian morals are taboo and adolescents start having sex early and with numerous partners – with all the attendant disease and socio-psychological fallout, it is no wonder that Islam looks attractive to many young people in a “Christian” society where morality is in free-fall, seeking a form of order and righteousness. The tragedy is that Christianity has been so hamstrung and sissified by church “leaders,” educators and the media, that it is not seen as an alternative — though it can offer the same order and righteousness but without the violence and coercion of Islam. Thus the only viable alternative is ignored].

A lot of students [Muslim] think: The Germans are sh-t. You don’t make friends with Germans.”

“They call you a nazi if you express yourself,” says one girl.

During Ramadan [when Muslims fast], they spit in the German students’ food.

Muslim girls can only go swimming fully clothed.

One [Muslim] girl, asked what kind of husband she would like to marry, said “one who doesn’t beat me.”

The current regime is the most Islam-friendly one ever. Obama, whose warm feelings for Islam and disdain for Israel, for example, are undisguised, has invited 250,000 Palestinians to resettle in the USA. It is only a start. Judging by the situation in Europe, it is just a matter of time before America is Islamized, unless God intervenes and awakens us from our opiate slumber. And reminds us that this isn’t a party. It’s a war.

Move over, Obama — Arizona leading US now

Obama and the Democrats are apparently trying to turn leadership of US imigration over to El Presidente Calderon. They gave him a huge round of applause recently when he knocked Arizona’s new get-tough-on-illegals law.

But in reality, according to Dave Levine, Arizona is now the new leader in this area, with all of 18 states looking to pass similar legislation to stop the invasion. Have a look.

Don Hank

Arizona‘s 1070 Law Is Leading The Country And Reshaping The Country

 by Dave Levine

 As of today, May 21, 2010, 18  states  (http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/18-states-now-have-plans-for-a-1) are planning 1070-style anti-trespass bills of their own. 1070 authors Prof. Kris Kobach and Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce have to be feeling good about the popularity of their bill-now-law not only among Arizonans but among Americans across the country. There would be 30 states by now with mirror bills but for the ACLU class action suit having already been filed. Hopefully, a decision on that frivolous suit will be rendered shortly.

While 1070 is the talk of the nation, it has brought the horrors of the Invasion (aka illegal immigration) to the mainstream media and has the left backpedalling. This thing is so popular that to speak out against it is making those who do quite unpopular! Whereas in years past cries of “racial profiling” and “racism” would cause those who might support such a bill to “cower in a corner”, now the worm has turned and it’s the leftists and reconquistas who are reeling! Their cries of “racial profiling” and “racism” are falling on deaf American ears. Why? Because thanks to leaders like Russell Pearce and Governor Brewer in Arizona, Daryl Metcalfe in Pennsylvania and so many others like them–along with the wonderful vehicle of American talk radio–Americans are finding out just how deadly and vicious and detrimental the Invasion by 40 to 50 million foreign nationals (most of them Mexicans) really is. Not just Rob Krentz’ murder by a cowardly illegal alien but also the 25 Americans killed by DUI accidents caused by illegals and murdered daily by illegals across the country, the hundreds of thousands of rapes, child molestations, kidnapping, burglary, battery, the massive document fraud committed by millions of illegals against Americans and our continuing to get them “bennies” while all this is going on! Something had to “crack” and it was Arizona that said “No more!”

 Read more:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/arizonas-1070-law-is-leading-1

BREAKING: Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies — the Basis for Obama’s — an Economic Disaster (PJM Exclusive)

PJM has received a leaked internal document confirming Spain realizes its green failures, just as Obama pushes the American Power Act based on Spain’s program. (Click here for the original Spanish document. An English translation is provided in this article.)

May 18, 2010

Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms the key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.
On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America.
Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans.
Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act.
But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.
Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.
The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.
Read more

Is it too late?

Is it too late?

I hate to ask that question. I was thrilled when big bad Dede Scozzafava stepped down and handed over the Republican candidacy to Doug Hoffman.

That is because I knew Hoffman had said he was pro-life and, like many others, just assumed he was an all-around conservative. I should have realized that could not be true, because Doug has an R after his name and R stands for Neocon.

Americans respond favorably to politicians who speak their minds – the minds of Americans that is.

But I found a long time ago that GOP candidates routinely speak our minds but vote their minds, and pro-lifers are often one-issue voters.

I had said before that if a candidate said he was pro-life (lip service is all most pro-life voters require, not much proof), but was also weak on borders or favored amnesty, then ultimately, probably not one life would be saved, but worse, the US would be another step closer to world government, whose advocates start by erasing borders and diluting culture (the rest is easy). Since I have long observed Europe, I know what that means: dictatorship. The “nations” of Europe are no longer sovereign in any sense of that word. Even if “national” legislators were pro-life, since the central government controls everything, they can do end-runs around any “national” legislation, because all legislation must be “harmonized” to EU directives. Even electing more conservative MEPs (members of European Parliament) has no real meaning, because the central European Commission is the only body empowered to draft legislation. Thus these MEPs can only vote yea or nay on legislation drafted by zombies who despise patriotism and never once doubted the wisdom of a strong centralized government that is just one step away from world government. It is, my friends, a dictatorship – sort of like the “People’s” Republic of Wherever, where the people have the right to pay their taxes and obey the law, or else.

Why do I talk so much about Europe, you say?

Because soon we will be indistinguishable from them and then merge with them – unless we stop the 2 party fraud.

When a pro-choice far-left Dede Scozzafava is replaced by a weak-kneed Doug Hoffman, that is a bait and switch. The “people” think they have won a round, but the fact is, they have been set up.

I have no quick answers here but one thing I would do immediately is stop voting for anyone in the GOP. They are incapable of respecting the Constitution, because that would mean “offending” too many people.

Here is the game plan: we offend and obey the Constitution or we grovel and die like Europe.

I am grateful to my mentor Dave Levine for the following no-punches-pulled article.

Don Hank

 

Doug Hoffman, Milquetoast Conservative for Congress (by Dave Levine as a “special” to The Dave Levine Show)

By Dave Levine

I’ve been in contact with the Doug Hoffman Campaign the last few days. I was hoping to interview him on my show. However, I’ve withdrawn that offer for one, simple reason: Doug Hoffman is an “anything but the Libtard” candidate. He is NOT a conservative! He’s just another milquetoast New York Republican with some conservative positions. Visit his website. His position on illegal immigration is chocked full of fallacies including the false accusation that anti-Invasion folks like me want to stop all immigration. He seems to be lumping illegal immigration with legal immigration and he appears to be proposing Amnesty.

To wit:

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration?

Hoffman: “There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here – while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.”

My thanks to Hanen at Sentinel Radio for the above quote from Hoffman and the link to his positions page below. She also emailed me this blog with some very interesting comments:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/doug-hoffman-milquetoast-1

This land is THEIR land

This land is THEIR land

 

By Don Hank

The New York Post reported today that a large encampment of jobless immigrants has been discovered near Southampton, a development featuring $1 million dollar homes.

The thrust of the story was the media’s usual focus: the rich-poor dichotomy that fuels the hatred of the rich in America but obfuscates the salient issue, a problem caused by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and that is, the elite’s abandonment of sovereignty for the US. Even “conservatives” ignore this theme as though we had “gotten beyond” it, as if abandoning our national identity and cohesion could constitute “getting beyond” anything and not getting into a growing and gargantuan tragedy.

The article about the encampment of immigrants (the word “illegal” is purged out) ends with a quote from the local police chief, who is obviously steeped in the lore of globalism:

 

“There really isn’t much we can do,” he said. “Our hands are tied on this.”

It has not dawned on either this police chief or the NY post writer that the reason the authorities’ hands are tied is that the “authorities,” the education system, the universities and the media have succeeded in erasing practically all memory of national sovereignty from the consciousness of the government and the American public in their race to hustle us into an EU-like dictatorship that now grips all of Europe and has impoverished the “rich” countries like Britain and Germany and stripped Europeans of fundamental rights, such as freedom of conscience, the right to protest, and the right to determine their own destiny.

Neither the police chief nor the writer dares to mention this or the fact that our only hope of restoration not only for Southampton or New York, but for the late great United States of America is to restore the awareness that we not only are still a nation of laws and borders (i.e., sovereignty) but we must be for our survival.

A border is like the skin on a living organism. Without skin there can be no meaningful protection from the encroachment of germs, viruses, temperature effects, drying, etc. Imagine a doctor prescribing the removal of all your skin in an attempt to help out with your relations with other people. The theory, in analogy with the globalists’ theory, would be that skin makes people selfish, reminds us that we are different and distinct from others and creates an unnecessary boundary that separates us from them. It sounds outlandish to us in a medical context, but yet, our education system, our media and government have endorsed just such a skinless system for our nation. Just as physicians routinely prescribed and performed bloodletting for more than 2 millennia, our government, with the backing of media, is prescribing, and even enforcing, the removal of the protective membrane – borders – around our country with alarmingly little opposition from conservatives or liberals, all of whom have an immense stake in national security and sovereignty. And just as the common man watched for millennia as physicians killed patient after patient with bloodletting, asking “what can be done?”, we stand by and ask the same question, without seeing the obvious answer in front of our face, namely, stop flaying our nation alive.

The results could not be clearer: Phoenix now has the second-highest kidnapping rate of any city in the world, after Mexico City. Kidnapping as a feature of life obviously came there from Mexico. Further, according to a widely quoted estimate by Strategy Forecasting, Inc., “at least half of the $65 billion worth of illegal narcotics purchased in the U.S. each year come through Mexico.” It is also estimated that 25 Americans are killed every day by illegal aliens, either by automobile or by weapons in the hands of criminals. Obama’s response? Apologize to the Mexicans for the drug use in the US.

The federal response here in York County, PA, has been to build a facility to provide assistance to citizenship applicants at the York County Prison, where immigrant criminals are housed. Yes, your government can’t wait to get these potential voters, with their paternalistic view of government, on their roles.

As the Southampton police chief said, his hands are tied.

But yours most certainly are not.

No matter what your pet issue happens to be, whether abortion, parents’ rights, homeschooling, crime, religious freedom, marriage, or whatever, your agenda is not going anywhere in a country whose laws could soon be subject to the UN or a North American Union, because once we are part of a one-world government, our laws will no longer be in our hands. Ask any European for details on that.

The first thing you need to do is refuse to vote for any candidate for any office who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (or the Trilateral Commission or other globalist group) or who refuses to acknowledge our right to have protected boundaries or strong immigration law enforcement. If your pastor preaches against nationalism, calling it dangerous and un-Christian, that is code for: I am a globalist and I do not believe in sovereignty.

Why is he your pastor?

Stop supporting that church. Worship at home if necessary. Where two or three are gathered together…

America’s foundation is riddled with globalist termites. The Bushes were such termites. McCain is such a termite. So were all the other candidates in the last election with the exception of Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Obama and the Democrats all are termites.

But weak though it is, this is our country, and we must stand up and defend it. Let us make anti-nationalism as unpopular as racism or communism.

Racism is an excuse for slavery on an individual scale. Communism is an excuse for slavery on a national scale.

Globalism is an excuse for slavery on a world scale and once it happens, the good old USA won’t be there to stop it because we will be part of it.

Does pro-life have to mean anti-sovereignty?

Does pro-life mean anti-sovereignty?

 

by Donald Hank

 A while back pro-lifers started reminding us that the babies that were aborted since Wade/Roe would have been productive American workers and that there were some 40 million of them. They said that this shortfall had to be made up by immigrants and strongly suggested that God had therefore allowed the current situation of millions of illegals from Mexico. They sound almost gleeful as they announce this.

So illegal immigration and all the associated ills like increased crime, drug abuse and extra money spent on social services is a visitation of God’s wrath on America for the sin of abortion?

That’s the old liberal guilt by association theory. But a closer look shows that it wasn’t God who intervened to punish us but rather the neocons under George Bush-the same ones who teamed up with the Democrats to punish us via our financial markets. And it is not the Christian God who started and perpetuated this myth but rather some corrupt left-leaning church leaders, including many evangelicals, who use this argument to defang opponents who have legitimate concerns about the invasion from Mexico.

A while back I got in trouble with some of the anti-sovereigns in the pro-life movement when I ran my article exposing pro-lifer Mike Huckabee’s choice of Richard Haass as his proposed secretary of state. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is a huge red flag, but worse, had recently written a paper saying that we need to “rethink” the idea of sovereignty (meaning it is no longer needed in our post-modern world). I had also shown elsewhere how prominent church leaders like Dr. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, had criticized “nationalism,” and had shown that criticizing nationalism is just a sneaky way to undermine sovereignty. (If you understand that Land also endorses Al Gore’s ideas, it is not hard to imagine where he is situated on the political spectrum.) This criticism of nationalism is found throughout the denominations in America, which are coming under increasing centralized control and becoming little more than an arm of the Left, which is the main reason why you will almost never hear a “conservative” or “evangelical” leader or pastor speaking out against lawless immigration practices or sanctuary cities.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, he has become increasingly vocal about his pro-illegal immigration views, apparently believing he is invincible. An ad his campaign recently ran in Spanish (endorsed by McCain himself) absurdly “blames” the Obama camp for blocking immigration “reform,” which smart people know is code for amnesty. Frankly, folks, if conservatives knew the Obama camp were opposed to amnesty, I am sure some would consider voting for Obama, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I am not so sure it was the Democrats who torpedoed the amnesty bill. If I recall correctly, a lot of us, myself included, lobbied so hard against that bill (supported by McCain and Bush, for example) that the congressional phone lines went down.

But McCain must take us all for a bunch of bumpkins if he thinks there aren’t any conservatives who understand Spanish and can find out what he is up to.

Michelle Malkin recently slammed McCain hard on the border-amnesty issue. And there are good blogs that show how shameless officials and their immigration policies are causing unnecessary killings, rapes and other hardships on Americans. CNN’s Lou Dobbs does an outstanding job reporting on illegal immigration, and I recommend you tune out of Fox News and into CNN for as long as his show lasts.

But Malkin and Dobbs are almost alone these days. You won’t hear much meaningful talk on illegal immigration on talk radio or Fox News these days. Sean Hannity is still blathering about the evils of the Democrats as if the Republican leadership were back in the hands of Ron Reagan, but in his interviews with McCain and Palin (where does she stand?), never mentions illegal immigration, as if the issue has gone away.

But we are far from that these days, and short of an act of God, we are in for 4 very very rocky years, no matter who is elected.

Oh, and if you believe pro-life automatically means anti-sovereignty, I have a bridge I can sell you.

 

Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.

 

By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ-the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church-Larry Bland and Nate Spencer-were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads-all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

 

Read more