America, the dark continent

Curtain of darkness

Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, January 15th, 2009

What is happening in the American news media is terrifying for those who can see through it. Exaggeration? Conspiracy theory? A recent example will allow you to judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

When Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat, the first question that came to the mind of police authorities was whether the President-elect had partnered with him or at least was aware of what was going on. There was no hiding the question, not only because it came directly from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but also because, a few weeks earlier, one of the main Obamist campaign aides, David Axelrod, had mentioned in an interview a recent meeting between Obama and governor Blagojevich. Obama’s reassuring reply came right away, after, according to him, a thorough internal investigation, and was promptly trumpeted by the media as the final solution to the riddle: No, not even Obama himself, nor any member of his team had had any contact whatsoever with Blagojevich. Axelrod was quick to confirm it, swearing that his first declaration had been just a slip-up. With that, the media announced en bloc, to the general relief of the believers, that Blagojevich’s fall did not in any way stain the anointed Messiah’s honor.

Displeased with such a facile clarification, the non-profit organization Judicial Watch subpoenaed Blagojevich, under the Freedom of Information Act, to disclose all official records of any recent contact between the governor and Barack Obama or any member of his team. What came in response was astounding, to say the least: a letter written on the Presidential Transition Team’s letterhead, signed personally by Barack Obama, in which he thanked Blagojevich for the meeting they had had in Philadelphia on December 2, only a week before the Illinois governor was arrested. Even worse: not only had Obama and Blagojevich taken part into the conversation, but so had Vice-President-elect Joe Biden. The document can be read at

It is full and official proof that Obama lied.

Well, do you know how many newspapers have publicized that so far? None. How many TV news programs?  None. Complete silence, total protection of the darling’s image. No matter how many documents are made public, no matter how many facts are unveiled and thoroughly proved, no matter how many crimes and misdemeanors he might have committed, not a single word against Obama will be read or heard in the elegant media. The abyss between news and reality has become immeasurable, insurmountable. With crushing unanimity, reporters, editors and commentators lie, conceal, obfuscate, change the subject and, with shocking cynicism, laugh at anyone who tries to do journalism the old fashioned way, the fact-and-document journalism, whose days are numbered, surviving only on the internet and talk radio. Nothing of what has been previously seen in Western democracies in terms of counterfeiting and news manipulation can compare to this absolute and relentless blockade, which can only be matched by totalitarian censorship in communist countries, the difference being that the latter was imposed by the government, while the first arises from voluntary complicity – a systemic and not conspiratorial one, exactly as predicted by communist strategist Antonio Gramsci.

More than Obama’s election itself, this phenomenon signals a historical sea-change, destined to bear devastating consequences on a global scale. Decades of indoctrination in the universities, based on the premise that there is no reality, just the “imposition of the narrative,” have accomplished their goal: a new generation of journalists has come to power at the news rooms, deeply imbued with the strong belief that their duty is not to depict the world, but to transform it. The honorable public, likewise, is supposed to be swept up by this change, without knowing where it comes from or where it will lead to. Whether this curtain of darkness will remain closed for a thousand or just a few years, I don’t know.

What is certain is that it’s already descended upon the land that was once home to the free press.


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

The Internet Monk is Wrong to Wish Obama an Unqualified Successful Presidency

by Anthony Horvath

To begin with, I need to say that as an occasional reader of the InternetMonk blog, I almost always approve of almost everything that I read there. Michael Spencer gets a lot of things right and a lot of things he says needs to be heard by the Church. So this is not knee jerk reaction. Indeed, I find him a kindred spirit and frankly wish that I didn’t have to challenge him on his recent blog entry, Christians: What are you saying about the President?

Before I begin, I should also mention that there is a sense in which I’m singling him out unfairly. I have been hearing similar sentiments from a variety of places. So, this should be read as a challenge to Spencer but also a whole host of other commentators too. Rightly or wrongly, his post is being taken as representative of several worrisome trends.

The IM begins with a litany of comments that he has heard that he finds disgraceful. Without hearing the context in which they were spoken we are left to take them on their face. There isn’t much we can do about that. We certainly can’t ask him to substantiate each one. Some of them we can join in denouncing, but others I think I’d like to hear the arguments for. Did Mr. Spencer solicit their arguments even? Therein lies the first problem. Mr. Spencer leaves little room for the possibility that the speakers have good reasons for what they are saying. Rather, we are told with utter certitude that these are all “threatening, hateful, hostile or untrue words.”

That approach only works if you expect that your audience already accepts the terms of the discussion, which of course most of the people commenting on the entry did. But since the whole point is to persuade those who don’t accept those terms to think like you then in my view you have to do more than just throw out statements that you expect any reasonable person to reject. Granted, we don’t want to endorse something that will get you on ‘some FBI list’ but I personally don’t see an inherent contradiction (for example) between praying for someone and hating them, or at least hating what they stand for.

Perhaps more worrisome then the possibility that a caricature is being painted is that the concern is over seeing “a black Democrat take the office of the President.”

That is utterly ridiculous. I know a lot of people who are horrified at an Obama presidency and none of them care one lick that he is black. What about the wide spread support of Alan Keyes? What about the folks who pined for Condi Rice to run? Then, when we heard examples of contemptible statements none of them supported the racial aspect. So where did this come from? I’ll tell you what it sounded like to me- it sounded like a very clever way to call people racists without using the word. Saying it bluntly would have seen immediately as insulting and patently false. Instead, it was still insulting and patently false, but cleverly worded. Still an insult and still patently false. Mr. Spencer calls people to repentance for saying the things they said. He should repent for this insult to fellow Christians.

But I don’t want to dwell on this aspect. My problems with his post run far deeper.

Spencer’s arguments after this basically have two halves. The first half is ‘No, I don’t agree with Obama but I still wish him well.’ The second half is his exposition on what the Christian’s attitude on government should be. I will take them each in turn and then wrap it up with a discussion of worrisome subtext to Mr. Spencer’s arguments, and others I’ve heard and read as well.

Like the many pundits and bloggers wishing Obama a ‘successful’ presidency, Mr. Spencer says: Continue reading

VA cuts off Planned Parenthood funding

Virginia Cuts All Government Funding to Planned Parenthood

Senate surprisingly follows House in opposing abortion funding

By Michael Baggot

RICHMOND, VA, February 29, 2008 ( – The Virginia Senate decided to end taxpayer funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood on Wednesday.  Lt. Governor Bill Bolling cast the tie-breaking vote and approved the amendment to the state budget following the 20-20 tie vote among senators. 

Attorney general hopeful Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II introduced the amendment.  He explicitly attacked Planned Parenthood’s abortion programs.  “What we are doing is financing an abortion-mill operator,” Cuccinelli said. “This will deny them that money.”

The decision was a surprise, given the Senate’s Democratic majority.  Democrat Sen. Charles J. Colgan’s vote in favor of the amendment led to the tie vote, which was decided by the Lt. Governor’s vote.  Despite pressure from fellow Democrats, Colgan sided with 19 Republicans, stating, “I ran on a pro-life platform, and most of my constituents are pro-life.”  Colgan cited fidelity to his conscience as a major reason for opposing funding to Planned Parenthood.

Democratic opponents of the amendment claimed that Planned Parenthood’s programs actually decrease abortion, and that cutting funding to PP would hurt PP’s HIV prevention and pregnancy prevention programs.

Sen. Janet D. Howell, argued that Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive programs lead to a decreased number of abortions.  “The irony is, Planned Parenthood probably prevents more abortions than any other organization in the country,” said Howell.

Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw expressed fears that the Wednesday decision will lead to further funding cuts to groups that supply abortion.  “Once we start down this road, there will be no stopping,” said Saslaw.

Last summer, Planned Parenthood revealed that it had received $305.3 million in tax-player funding in 2006, 12 percent more than in the previous year.  Planned Parenthood admitted that 34 percent of its 2006 income came from taxpayer funding.  The organization also reported a $55.8 million profit for the year. 

The Republican-controlled House has already eliminated Planned Parenthood funding from its budget. 

Planned Parenthood’s abortion support was a clear reason for House opposition to funding.  “We should shut off all federal dollars to any organization that provides abortion services or counseling,” Rep. Stephen King told Cybercast News Service. 

Representatives also cited the inappropriate sexual material on Planned Parenthood’s site as reason to end taxpayer support of the group.  The site tells teens that viewing pornography is normal.  “I don’t believe taxpayer funding should be going to groups that put sexually explicit material on the Internet targeted at minors” said Rep. Joseph Pitts. 

The final state budget will be decided during the next week in light of both House and Senate proposals. 

Lifesite recently reported on undercover investigations that showed Planned Parenthood’s racist tendencies (  An actor playing a white racist was able to give money to the group for the specific purpose of eliminating a black baby who might someday rob the apparent donor’s son of a spot in college because of “affirmative action”. 

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once stated, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

In another case from last year, Lila Rose, editor of The Advocate pro-life magazine, who also organized the recent racism investigation, posed as a 15 year old seeking an abortion at Planned Parenthood.  In a recorded conversation, she was encouraged to change her birth date so that the organization would not have to report her pregnancy as statutory rape.

In light of undercover recent investigations, Rose argues that “young girls are at risk and Planned Parenthood is receiving federal tax money. The federal government should investigate this and Planned Parenthood, like any other corporation, should be held accountable.”

See other related coverage:

Undercover Investigation Reveals Planned Parenthood’s Racism

U.S. Planned Parenthood Reports Record Profit, Record Amount of Taxpayer Funding