Republicans threw the election

Republicans threw the election

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

Why didn’t McCain mention this?

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

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

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

No Republican would defend the free market.

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

Watch here.

 

“Gays” reject democracy

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

 

 

More on making leftists squirm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Hank

 

 

My ears are burning…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the main difference is honesty and integrity.

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

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

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

Donald Hank

 

Spreading Islam through public and Christian schools:

 

By Berit Kjos

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

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

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

Read more here.

 

U.S. may soon accept Sharia Law

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

Read more here.

 

William Lobdell article:

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

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

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

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

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

Joran wanted to traffic in Thai women?

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

Read about it here.

 

Obama required by SCOTUS to present a birth certificate:

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

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

Read more here.

Victim of leftist regime warns America

I have found that there is no more reliable warning about the Left than that from a country that has been taken over by the Left, and there is no more valuable source of insight about the strategy and tactics of the Left than a former leftist who has been redeemed. I say that as a former leftist who has been redeemed.

Brazil is a country that has fallen into the clutches of the hard Left. There is almost no alternate news source there.

Mr. de Carvalho has repeatedly pointed out that, prior to the last presidential elections, the Brazilian news media had refused to mention that Brazilian President Lula was one of the founders of the far-left, terrorist-ridden Forum of Sao Paolo. In the early years, anyone who even admitted the existence of this forum was considered an insane rightwing hate monger.

Sound familiar?

Phillip Berg’s lawsuit that no one mentions in the media? The L.A. Times videos that will not be shown?  The silence over Obama’s involvement with radical leftist Odinga in Kenya? De Carvalho has already pointed out the eerie similarity between these (and many other) hush-ups and the way the leftwing suppressed the truth in his country before Lula’s election.

Later, after the damage was irreversible, Lula himself not only publicly admitted the Sao Paolo Forum existed, but in fact, spoke proudly of how much he had personally achieved for the Left in South America by participating in it. He even brazenly bragged how he had pulled the wool over the eyes of naïve Brazilian citizens.

Will Barack Obama some day brazenly brag that he has deceived you as well?

There is only one thing standing in the way of that possibility: you.

This coming Tuesday, November 4.

Donald Hank

 

The candidate of fear

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), October 24th, 2008

Called “the Messiah” by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and “My Jesus” by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, “Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.” What if he did not let us know?

Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have “crossed the line” and that you are virtually guilty of a “hate crime.” Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a “new beginning,” and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given-oh, no!-the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama “guilt by association”- an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial “overtones.”

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of “ideas,” emphasizing that his opponent is “a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.”

This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired. An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe The Plumber-the nickname by which he has become known nationwide-draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, “When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive 63 million dollars in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case. In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted “Kill him” after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times-nominally Republican-which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere “internet rumors” and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.

The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode-but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject. 

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the elections, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As for Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters, is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public-or even to become aware of it in a low voice-it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.

 

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.