Ron they never knew ye

Ronald Reagan would be crying now

 

by Don Hank

In the context of the current Syria crisis, I am seeing articles by “conservatives” suggesting that Ronald Reagan would have solved this by threatening the Russians or even shooting down Russian planes in Syria.

Conservatives (really Neocons if we are to be honest), I daresay you have forgotten who Ronald Reagan was and what made him a great statesman. His salient trait was, if anything, restraint. He was characterized precisely by not being the cowboy he was accused of being.

This year the GOP held its first major debate in a Reagan-themed venue, suggesting that the candidates were Reagan-like. All but one were the cheapest and shoddiest of imitations. Trump came closest because he is anti-establishment and tussles with the media, as Reagan had done. Of course, unlike Reagan, Trump does not exactly sound like a wise grandfather, more like a cantankerous uncle, but he is the only one who shows restraint toward Russia.

For all their hot air about Reagan, here is what today’s GOP wants you to forget:

Reagan never got the US into wars that killed thousands of Americans, the way the Bushes did.

Despite his cowboy image, exaggerated by the press, his skirmishes were brief and relatively safe. Only 19 Americans died in Grenada (although to be fair, legal experts tell us that war was not in line with international law), only two US airmen died in the 1986 attack on Libya, and no US military fighters died in Afghanistan because Reagan knew he did not dare go head to head with the Soviet Union in that conflict. Unlike today’s amateurs, Reagan knew that a nuclear confrontation would likely spell the end of civilization, if not of human life.

In fact, most of us have forgotten by now that, despite Reagan’s vehement philosophical disagreement with the Soviets, he did nothing to escalate the tension even after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 in September of 1983.

Instead of risking US lives in foreign conflicts, Reagan engaged in secret operations, for example, recruiting Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and numerous terror groups to ostensibly fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere (some of which groups we now, unfortunately, face as enemies).

Reagan also cautiously entered the conflict in Lebanon. However, instead of trying to reconcile the belligerent factions, he sided militarily with the Christian faction because he felt he should represent the people closest in religion to most Americans. Very shortly after that, the US Marine barracks were blown up by suicide bombers and he realized his mistake.

Now if he had been a Bush, he would no doubt have sacrificed still more lives for the sake of American “prestige.” Instead, to his credit, he pulled out all US troops and offered no lame excuses. The plaque on his desk said it all: “the buck stops with me.”

Now I am opposed to about everything our current radical socialist White House resident has done domestically, so the following is hard to say, but I hope you will make an effort to understand this: Like it or not, Obama’s policy of standing aside for Putin in Syria resembles Reagan’s policy in Lebanon and in the 007 shootdown incident more than the Neocon saber-rattling to which we are subjected 24-7. A good president knows when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Even a bad president has some good (and many bad) advisers. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can’t imagine the Gipper going up against Russia, and for the same reason that Obama won’t. It is just too downright dangerous. And yet, knowing the Gipper as we do, I am sure you will agree that he would not put the Syrian Christians in harm’s way as Obama has done. I would expect that Reagan would have made an effort to reconcile with Assad, knowing that the latter was protecting Christians and all other minorities in Syria.

So would Reagan have taken Israel’s side and opposed Assad over the Golan Heights?

Who knows? At any rate, you will no doubt agree that he’d have tried to find a mutually agreeable solution. On the other hand, it is true that no president, including Reagan, has ever supported making Jerusalem the capital of Israel – despite pressure to do so. Therefore, there never has been a totally pro-Israel US president.

Another important detail is that Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987, near the end of the Reagan administration, and the president did not bow to pressure from Israel to release Pollard.

There are many unfathomables in US politics. Reagan was one of them. Yet some foolish Neocons hide behind the Reagan brand to defend their warlike policies and reckless statements about Putin.

Ron, they never knew ye.

GOP Debate / Chavez learns a Bible lesson

by Don Hank

Did you see the GOP candidates’ debate the other night?

While Fox News moderators and commentators pretended that Perry and Romney were the stars of the debate and that Mitt had “won,” the fact is, neither of them were close to winning if you look at the debate from a constitutional conservative standpoint.

Bachmann said, near the end, that we should not dismiss those candidates who are “constitutional conservatives” in favor of candidates who look like they are better equipped to beat Obama. She pointed out – rightly in my opinion – that Obama is by now an extremely weak candidate and that this is a good opportunity for a true conservative to win.

In saying this, she defined not only herself – as a constitutional conservative – but also every one of the others, NONE of whom used that term.

Not only that, she was the only one who said she would build a fence on every mile and every foot of our southern border.

Frankly, folks, she sounded for all the world like Ronald Reagan and no one else came anywhere near that. She is THE conservative candidate, if you really want a conservative president. And if you are willing to do your own thinking and not let Fox steer you to the left.

Ron Paul is very smart and, as he mentioned, he really does understand the economic and financial issues well. His problem is that he has decided not to be a conservative. He clearly wants to be a libertarian and has defined himself as such without mentioning that word. If I recall correctly, Gary Johnson, the de facto libertarian former governor of New Mexico, said he wanted Paul as his running mate. Gary and Paul have indicated in the past that they are not for closing our southern border and that we need more, not less, immigrants – read, illegal aliens. You know better than that.

A friend emailed me that they are setting up Romney or Perry to win. However, judging by the tough comments by the moderators themselves, it looks like they favor spoiled rich kid Mitt Romney.

I haven’t given up on Bachmann yet.

 

Chavez learns a Bible lesson:

Did you know that, in June of last year, Hugo Chavez literally cursed Israel, in defiance of God’s warning in Genesis? I have seen this at YouTube. You can google it.

Well, that is not the interesting part:

THIS June, a crestfallen and humbled Chavez returned from Cuba, where he had gone to get treatment for cancer. In a press conference he admitted: My cancer is not gone.

Shortly thereafter, he released political prisoners from prison.

Chavez learned the hard way that God meant it when He said this:

Genesis 12

 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

 3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Listen and watch as Chavez says: “Maldito sea el estado de Israel”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EYL0_5J_o

Ronald Reagan is back and he is you

Ronald Reagan is back, and he is you

 

Friends, conservatives often complain that no one has ever risen to take the place of Ronald Reagan in our government.

But Ronald Reagan is back, and he is you! His spirit has never once left us.

His spirit was alive and well when you stood up last year and opposed the bipartisan amnesty bill that you knew the Gipper wouldn’t approve.

He was here again today in our Congress during the vote that failed to pass a bill that would have made slaves of every one of us and ended free market capitalism forever in the USA.

Fox News said legislators received 999 calls out of 1,000 opposing the bailout. Fox commentators didn’t look too happy about that and the results of today’s vote. I imagine many of them, like Neil Cavuto, are heavily invested in stocks. (Isn’t it interesting that, although almost 100% of us oppose the bailout, Fox News continues to drone on about how important it is for the taxpayer to foot the bills for the crooks in government. Looks like conservatives have broken with their task master).

I realize that the stock market does not like this, but look, I have stock too, and I know that if we show these lazy pandering politicians we won’t let them enslave us, our children will grow up in a better, safer world.

And it won’t happen again!

Donald Hank

 

Letter to Congressman Platts and Sen. Arlen Specter

 

As you know, the current financial crisis originated with the Democratic Party in 1977 when Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act passed. Then Clinton strengthened these provisions by making it mandatory for banks to lend at least $1 trillion in subprime loans. At that point, this ideologically driven effort to provide “affordable” loans began driving up housing prices drastically. But corrupt community organizing agencies like ACORN and La Raza didn’t seem to mind that their constituents now had to pay more for homes they couldn’t afford in the first place. The present administration more than doubled Clinton’s quota, and the HUD web site currently carries a paragraph on Bush’s “zero downpayment initiative.” Conservative sources are lamenting that Bush had repeatedly asked for more oversight during his 2 terms and called for tighter regulations. Yet it looks like the President, in complete agreement with his friends across the aisle, actually was OVER-regulating on the side of wealth sharing (is that the new Republican way?). It might be wise for you to keep away from this malodorous situation by voting against ANY bailout. I checked around Wrightsville and have yet to come across anyone who has an extra $10,000 to fork over to a government that mismanages our money or who believes it is government’s job to own and run businesses Soviet style.

(I followed this up with phone calls)

Thank you.

 

 

 

Letter to the National Association of Realtors

 

NAR email address (attn. Mary Trupo): mtrupo@realtors.org

 

Hello Mary,

I saw this at the NAR web site:

“The National Association of Realtors® supports the ongoing bipartisan efforts to address the current crisis in the financial and secondary markets. While we await further details and will continue to be active in helping to shape the legislation, NAR believes these efforts are imperative to restore market liquidity.”

Unfortunately, I infer from this that your organization is in favor of the current bipartisan efforts to make tax payers responsible for what you know the government caused in the most callous and cynical possible manner.

I say that because I saw an entry at the NAR web site some years back that asked the government for more fiscal responsibility in the management of subprime loans and in regulations requiring banks to issue them.

That tells me that you saw this financial crash coming.

Now that it is here, your response seems chillingly impersonal, almost surreal.

Where is the anger? You saw it coming. Now you are coolly requesting a bipartisan effort to bail out the mortgage banks as if the blame lay with irresponsible borrowers, when it was government-backed lenders and the very politicians you now ask to control the financial market who caused this debacle. There was genuine concern reflected in your letter to the administration, asking for a relaxation of the risky experimental government requirements under the Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Clinton and Bush administrations’ insistence on forcing banks to issue ever higher-risk loans. It was like a destructive test of a boiler.

You knew that the lending institutions eventually would fail under these policies and you took the initiative to ask them to stop. But now that the disaster is here, you are expecting them to pass the loss on to those of us who pay our bills on time. I understand your fear, but I don’t understand why we the taxpayers, most of whom pay our bills on time, can be held responsible.

I am asking your organization for a stronger condemnation of the failed bipartisan policies that foisted dangerous subprime lending practices on banks and Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Tell the media that you, as business people, knew this policy was doomed to failure, had warned the government about this, that the blame goes to both parties, and that you are leery about leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, particularly since the proposed plan threatens the free market like nothing ever has before in American history.

If you are silent now and fail to condemn these failed lending policies and put the blame where it belongs, on both sides of the aisle, then there is no way to avoid a repeat of this bitter experience for you, your clients and every American taxpayer.

Please issue a press release condemning the reckless policies that you watched destroy your industry! And please do not pass this one off on the taxpayer. It will surely come back to haunt you.

Best Regards,

Don Hank,

Editor in Chief

http://laiglesforum.com

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by conservatives

Aleksander Solzenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by America

 

By Donald Hank

 

Solzhenitsyn is known as a writer who addressed issues like the lack of freedom in the USSR, for example, in his novels “Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

But few are aware that his greatest contribution to the world was his thorough fact-finding research on the early years prior to the Russian Revolution and the first years thereafter.

Solzhenitsyn would go to the local library and ask for copies of pre-revolution newspapers. He would laboriously copy out passages that contradicted the Soviet revisionist histories. He also frequently checked out any items of interest in this regard, making library officials suspicious. He was soon tailed by Soviet agents, who interrogated him and ultimately had him arrested.

He was able to hide much of this copied information from them and later use it in his novels.

Thus Solzhenitsyn was much more than just a novelist. He was a chronicler and historian. And he was the only living Soviet who did this to such an extent. He filled a dark void and it is hard to imagine a world without his contribution.

Solzhenitsyn admitted that he was, initially, just another Soviet citizen who hardly questioned the regime and its motives and agenda. Yet, his curiosity led him to knowledge, and knowledge ultimately led to freedom.

But it was a long hard journey, and few understand the sufferings he went through.

Even fewer understand his sufferings in America, where he lived for a few years while employed by Harvard University. Here he was snubbed by those who should have befriended him. And he was snubbed – ultimately – simply for being a Russian patriot.

President Reagan’s advisors wrongly categorized Solzhenitsyn as an extreme nationalist, when he was nothing but a man who loved his country.

No wonder then that he returned disillusioned to Russia and became reconciled with some of the people who were once his persecutors. Who knows what direction Russia would have taken if America had befriended Solzhenitsyn instead of marginalizing him?

And it didn’t have to be that way. American conservatives must divorce their feelings about evil regimes from their feelings toward the people who have suffered under those regimes.

How can God bless us if we do not?

I had stumbled across Solzhenitsyn’s letter to Reagan, and had long wrestled with the idea of translating it but was thwarted by 2 considerations:

1-Perhaps the letter had already been published in English;

2-Perhaps it would not change any minds or produce any tangible benefit for Americans.

But now that our dear friend of freedom is gone, I decided to investigate and found no mention of the letter in English anywhere on the Web.

And I thought perhaps someone may benefit from reading it. Not that I wish to highlight the failure of those Americans responsible for offending the writer. It is rather my desire to help Americans of our generation to learn from our past mistakes.

I have tried to help introduce to Americans a writer from Brazil whose passion for freedom and understanding of the extreme dangers that the Left poses here and in his home country remind me for all the word of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The knowledge we can gain from him is considerable and can be turned to our advantage.

Who knows? Perhaps how you treat Olavo de Carvalho may in some way affect our future course.

Let’s do better this time around.

 

 

 

Letter to President Reagan

 

(Published in the book “Aleksander Solzhenitsyn”, Yaroslavl, Verkhnaja Volga, 1997)

 

Cavendish, May 3, 1982

 

Dear Mr. President,

I am delighted with many aspects of your activity, and am happy for America that it finally has a president like you.  I never cease to thank God that you were not killed by those malicious bullets.

However, I have never had the honor of being received at the White House — neither in the Ford administration (the question arose there without my participation), nor later.  In recent months, roundabout inquiries have come to me through various routes asking under what circumstances I would be willing to accept an invitation to visit the White House.  I always responded that I was willing to go for a substantive discussion with you under circumstances providing the opportunity for a serious effective conversation, but not for an open ceremony.  I do not have time in my life for symbolic meetings.

However, I was offered (in a telephone call from advisor Pipes) not a personal meeting with you but a luncheon with the participation of emigrant politicians.  The same sources announced that this would be a luncheon for “Soviet dissidents.”  However, an artistic writer in the Russian sense does not belong to either of these groups.  I cannot allow myself to be assigned a false rank.  Further, the fact, form and date of the reception were sent and released to the press before I was informed myself. To this day, I have not received any information on even the names of the persons who were invited along with me for May 11.

Still worse, the press reported various hesitations on the part of the White House and publicly announced that the White House had not refuted the statement of the reason why a meeting with me was considered undesirable, namely, because I was “a symbol of extreme Russian nationalism.” This statement is offensive to my countrymen, to whose suffering I have dedicated my entire literary life. 

 I am not a “nationalist” at all.  I am a patriot.  In other words, I love my country — and that is why I also understand why others love theirs.  On more than one occasion, I have publicly stated that the vital interests of the peoples of the USSR demand the immediate cessation of all global seizures by the Soviets.  If people who think as I do came to power in the USSR, their first step would be to pull out of Central America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, leaving these nations to decide their own fate.  Their second step would be to stop the murderous arms race, devote the country’s efforts to healing the internal nearly century-old wounds of an already moribund populace.  And, of course, they would open the doors to those who wish to emigrate from our hapless country.

Amazingly, none of this suits your nearest advisers!  They want something else.  They call this [my] program “extreme Russian nationalism,” and some American generals are proposing selectively destroying the Russian population with an atomic strike.  It is odd that in the world today Russian nationalism evokes the greatest fear both in the potentates of the USSR and in the people around you.  Here is evidenced the hostile stance toward Russia herself, the country and the people, independently of government forms, which is characteristic of a substantial segment of American educated society, American financial circles and, sadly, even your advisers.  This attitude is harmful to the future of our two nations.

 Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I write this letter.  But I think that if a meeting with you somewhere were considered undesirable because you are an American patriot, you would also be offended.

Once you are no longer president, if you are ever in Vermont, I will be sincerely happy to meet with you at my home. 

Since this entire episode has been subjected to a distorted interpretation and it is quite likely that my motives for not traveling there have already been distorted, I feel that I will be obliged to publish this letter. Forgive me.

With sincere respect,

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 

Translated by Donald Hank

 

Informative article on Solzhenitsyn:

http://www.acton.org/commentary/468_solzhenitsyn_and_his_critics.php

Further reading on Solzhenitsyn’s stay in Vermont:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS01/808040348/1002/NEWS01

 

GOP, you’re fired! /Asif is ba-a-a-ck / James Kennedy video

GOP! YOU’RE FIRED!

by Tom Cox, Save America Summit

Ronald Reagan started his political life as a Democrat. When he realized the Democratic Party was wandering to the far left, he became a Republican. He’s supposed to have said something like, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me.”

I can identify fully with that position. I’ve been a Republican for almost twenty years, but no more. After two terms of a president who ran as a conservative, but governs as a liberal, I’m done with the Republican Party and their stinking pachyderm mascot.  

I voted twice for George W. Bush. I bought the GOP’s line that a conservative/Constitutionalist has nowhere else to go, and that not voting for Bush was, in effect, voting for Gore or Kerry. I hit the limit of my capacity for self-deception with the apparent success of RINO McCain, a dim bulb in a decrepit chandelier of lackluster “front runners” for the GOP nomination.

Enough. As the Republican Party abandons its core values of Judeo-Christian morality, fiscal prudence and respect for the Constitution, it has abandoned me.

At home, we have federal tax dollars being tamped down bottomless rat holes by a federal government that makes LBJ’s “Great Society” look positively tight-fisted.

The expansion of government into what passes for “public education,” these days, is a sop to the powerful teachers’ unions, who will expand their membership, and ratchet up their contributions to the Democrats. The school systems are hooked on federal funds (read: “taxpayers’ money”) that they receive in exchange for bureaucratic micromanagement of their already-failed methods and processes.

The colossal prescription drug welfare program will be a money sink to make New Deal make-work projects seem positively frugal, but this hold-up of the taxpayers will get a big thumbs-up from the multinational pharmaceutical companies – who will donate to the re-election campaign funds of lawmakers who pass laws to help them line their pockets.

Our “War on Terror” (which is like calling World War II a “War on Blitzkrieg,” or a “War on Kamikazes”) has blood and treasure flooding the sands of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can’t seem to identify the enemy, despite its best efforts to identify itself – the fascist dogma of Islam, a totalitarian socio-political system masquerading as a religion. What hope do we have of winning a war, if we don’t know who we’re fighting?

We have thousands of miles of unprotected national borders to our north and south, with a perpetual tidal wave of foreigners pouring through them daily. Border Patrol agents who try to do their jobs wind up in prison, and illegal aliens wind up on welfare.

There is a lot more, but the above is enough to make my case for firing the Republican Party. When you throw in John McCain, who thinks conservatives and Constitutionalists are unwashed rubes at best, or troublemakers and insurrectionists at worst – well, even an unwashed rube like me gets the message.

The conservative/Constitutionalist core of the Republican Party has been treated in the last few decades just the way Democrats treat American Blacks – as a voting bloc that can be catered to and lied to just enough, leading up to an election, that they will reliably vote with the bloc, and then be ignored and/or abused until the next election cycle is coming.

Democrats worship abortion, which kills Black babies at a much higher rate than their proportion of the population. Democrats perpetuate the failed public school system that does its best to keep Blacks ignorant and isolated from the opportunities America offers to those who help themselves to a better life through productive work.

And yet, the Blacks keep coming back to the Democratic Party, because they buy the fear and loathing that the Democrats are selling. “Republicans are racists! They’ll re-institute Jim Crow, throw poor people in debtors’ prison, and appoint Klansmen to the Supreme Court!”

Conservatives and Constitutionalists keep voting for Republicans, because — well, because they buy the same boogie man story, with different characters, but the same, scary plot.  “Just imagine what a Democrat president and Congress would do to the country! They’ll socialize medicine, impose racial quotas that hurt whites, spend the country into poverty, leave our borders, defenseless, appoint incompetent federal judges, take away our firearms, abolish free speech, blah, blah, blah.”  

Wait a minute. Didn’t a Republican president already do a lot of that, with or without a Republican majority in Congress?

I’m done with the Republican Party. I’m moving up to the Constitution Party, where I feel much more at home. If the Republican Party left you, I suggest you check the Constitution Party out, at their Website: http://www.constitutionparty.com/. Send those pachyderms packing. Their walking papers are long overdue.

Tom Cox
Charlotte, TN

ASIF is ba-a-a-a-ack!

And he is still on his damage-control jihad. Notice what he says about truth. Truth-o-phobia is a malady affecting millions, nay, billions, starting with the Left but also affecting Muslims, by their own confession, as you can read with your own eyes. No wonder the two are such close allies in their joint jihad against Western culture.

But in his latest message, he makes some good points. If you were a Muslim and basing my opinion on the USA on Hollywood, what would you think of us?

There is something both groups can do.

Click here and scroll to near the bottom for Asif’s comment and our response. Then add your own. Be nice but firm.

SEND this link to your pastor

…but protect your ears.

The silence may be deafening:

Click here for Dr. James Kennedy’s stirring message to our apostate churches.

JOHN McCain to taxpayers: Now you can pay your neighbors’ mortgages too

It is so sweet of John to have thought about his fellow Americans in these difficult times. Now, instead of just having to deal with our own finances and grappling with soaring gas and food prices, we can lend a hand to our neighbors by helping them pay their mortgages. I can’t wait to get started.

Might I say that I too have had hard financial times, many of them.

Know what I did each time that happened? Foolish me, I rushed right out and didn’t buy a house because it never occurred to me that the government would bail me out if I couldn’t pay the mortgage!

I could kick myself now for being so brash.

When will I learn my lesson: that bad decisions are for me to make and the government to fix?

Donald Hank

McCain’s plan would benefit the government and original lender by giving them certificates for part of the loan’s original value. If the homeowner sold for more, he or she would benefit along with the government and the original lender.

“It is built on the reality that homeowners should have an equity capital stake in their home,” he said. “Homeowners would end up with a 30-year mortgage and an equity stake in their home. The new lender would receive a federal guarantee of the mortgage.

“And the taxpayer gets a benefit if the sale value ever recovers,” he said.

Read more here.

Marx in the schools

Must Buy Book: Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World

by Gary DeMar

Its been said that “the philosophy of the classroom in this generation will be the philosophy of life in the next generation.” Our earliest founding fathers understood this. That’s why, after building homes and churches, they established educational institutions like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Today, most Christians have adopted the false premise that facts are neutral. They believe it doesn’t matter who teaches math, science, and history, because facts are facts. The humanists took advantage of this type of thinking by gradually shaping and controlling education in terms of materialist assumptions.

Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World shows how education can be used as a vehicle for social change from Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler to secular humanism and radical Islam. Our worldview opponents understand that education is where the war of ideas is fought. If Christians are serious about securing the future for our children, they must understand the nature of the war we are fighting.

NOTE: Purchasing “Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World (book)” from WND’s online store also qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND’s acclaimed monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2042