Russian “propaganda” sounds suspiciously like the truth

Don Hank

I recently read an opinion indicating the Russia is up to its old tricks of dividing the Western world and trying to destabilize the Middle East. The author cites the fact that Russia is refusing to go along with Western intervention in the Middle East. I was surprised to read this opinion because if anyone can be blamed for destabilizing that region it is the Western powers and their military adventures there.

The commentary also stated that Russia is a much bigger threat than the New World Order.

I disagree.

From what I see, the New World Order is actually an extension of the Soviet Union, but not of Russia, which is no longer a totalitarian communist state—or at least no more totalitarian than, say, the EU, whose commissioners are not elected democratically and who wield all the important power.

I think some US conservatives subconsciously conflate today’s Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. Even Reagan seemed to have a problem with seeing a Russian person in a positive light, including the Russian dissidents we should have reached out to, notably Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was treated with suspicion. Details here:

http://laiglesforum.com/aleksander-solzhenitsyn-tragically-misunderstood-by-conservatives/298.htm

During the cold war, I believe there were millions of confused people believing that it was the Russian nation and people we were supposed to oppose, not communism. Or rather, many felt that communism came with being Russian, just as freedom comes with being American.

Americans who tenaciously stick to this suspicious attitude toward all things Russian either no longer recognize communism when they see it or they aren’t afraid of living in a totalitarian state as long as it is orderly and they have enough to eat and as long as their keepers have Anglo-Saxon names and call themselves Christians on the campaign trail.

The truth is, what has happened in recent decades is an almost complete role reversal in terms of communist totalitarianism.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think that essentially, Russia is becoming America and the West is becoming the Soviet Union.

Here are just a few of the blatant symptoms of communism that you and I have been seeing throughout the West:

Economic communism:

1-Wealth redistribution between the rich nations, esp Germany, and the poor nations of the EU, to the extent that the euro and the European economy are being wrecked to maintain this ideology-driven scheme. Many blame this on the greed of the bankers, but there is something else going on here, not far beneath the surface, and that is the steadfast belief, even among business people and bankers, that the wealth (all but their own, that is) must be redistributed to achieve “social justice.” The CRA, which forced certain banks to lend to “underserved communities” (minorities and the poor), is a perfect example. The knee-jerk reaction when this is pointed out is to quickly assert that the CRA had little effect because only some banks were enforced upon. Nonsense. By forcing some to comply, the US government was tacitly agreeing to prop up the loans of any bank to these underserved communities, and as a result, most banks went along, driving up housing prices and causing a bubble that ultimately led to the crash. The banks that made the most reckless loans under this socialist scheme were rewarded with your money in the form of bailouts. They made out like the bandits they were.

The scheme was shoved down our throats because, despite his socialist policies, Bush was seen as “conservative.” It was perfect camouflage for a people who see politicians with white faces talking about their faith in Jesus as beyond reproach.

2-In the US, a record and vast number of people on food stamps. The “rich” (i.e., workers) are supporting America.

3-Obamacare

4-The obliteration of borders. In world socialism, which was first promoted by the Soviet Union, there were eventually to be no borders. In keeping with this idea, Obama refuses to deport illegal aliens and provides only a modicum of border protection. He and many others consider Mexico and the US to be a common territory. Particularly under G.W. Bush and Barack Obama, the 2 nations have come to be a de facto economic and political union (North American Union).

The old Soviet regime was anti-Christian.

5-Obamacare forces Catholic hospitals to pay for abortions

6-For decades, the ACLU has been winning battles all over our country to take Christian symbols out of public life

7-We are importing Muslims wholesale, who refuse to integrate and recently, have literally “stoned” Christians in Dearborn (those who are on my daily alerts list got a video link to that yesterday) while the police turned a blind eye.

8-The EU and its puppet “national” governments in Europe import millions of Muslims who do not integrate, cause trouble, have doubled and tripled the rates of crimes like rape, etc, and have created no-go zones where police, fire personnel and ambulances dare not enter. Police in Europe respond to Muslim rioters the same way as US police: they don’t. Laws and enforcement favor the Muslims and disadvantage Christians (proselytizing to Muslims, for example, is now considered a crime or misdemeanor in much of Europe).

9-The EU and the US have totally wrecked the Middle East. Except in Syria, which the West is itching to attack, there are almost no indigenous Christians left. They have been murdered or exiled, their churches burnt to the ground. 

10-The West has started making it difficult or illegal to discuss homosexual behavior from a biblical standpoint. Pastors don’t dare mention it. Canada and parts of Europe fine people for speaking against it. 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia in 2006 for expressing a scriptural viewpoint regarding homosexuality at a homosexual “OutFest.” They were charged with a “hate” crime that carries a sentence of 47 years in prison and a $90,000 fine for each one:

http://laiglesforum.com/federal-judge-refuses-to-release-homosexual-group-from-philadelphia-eleven-lawsuit/30.htm

Contrast this with Russia, which does not acknowledge same sex marriage and, in some jurisdictions, does not allow homosexual demonstrations.

Now let’s look at Russia:

Do you see the Russians importing Muslims? Whom are the Russians supporting in the Middle East? Do they have satellite states and do the richer ones have to send money to the poor ones? Are they obliterating the Russian border?

And here is the key: Do they interfere in the political affairs of sovereign nations to overthrow existing governments?

Here is a video of a speech by Putin on what can be called the New World Order (he didn’t mention the term explicitly). Whether or not you consider this to be propaganda, which side comes off as being right here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr5GxN3C8uw&feature=related

If you are interested in joining my daily alerts list, just send an email to zoilandon@msn.com and type “Daily alerts list” in the subject line.

A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Building on Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan for Radical Change

The following was posted by Laigle’s Staff writer Anthony Horvath at his blog:

I understand that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is just phase one in a more powerful overhaul, but I am leery about any plan that cannot be attained within a single term of the presidency.  Moreover, we cannot count on the legislators to get behind it, or sustain it once it gets going.

So that’s a pickle, right?  There pretty much isn’t a plan out there that can be rolled out within a single term with the assurance that the legislative branch will implement it as proposed (and not load it with 2,000 pages of caveats).

So what to do?

Suck it up and vote for Herman Cain.

And consider a different plan that actually tackles these issues head on and effectively ensures that the plan comes to fruition.

The plan is simply this:  deny the Federal government the right to collect individual and corporate taxes, period.  Instead, the Federal government would collect funds from the states.  The states in turn would be in charge of collecting the taxes that would then be sent along to the Federal government.  How the states collect that revenue would be entirely up to each individual state.  Each state would be assigned an ‘amount due’ based on some kind of objective and reasonable criteria, like for example, on a per capita basis and a calculation of that state’s particular burden on the Federal budget.

Read the whole proposal