The Newt behind the suit

Newt is a good talker. So was Obama, remember?

Don Hank

In election cycles, Newt Gingrich knows how to talk like a conservative. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency (see link and quotes below).

But when the chips are down, he has proven to be quite at home in Democrat territory. Too much at home.

Now, the GOP establishment (and the “Tea Party,” which they have virtually co-opted) is saying that only the left-leaning Newt can save us from Obama because he can appeal to “both sides of the aisle.”

As Michelle Bachmann pointed out in the debate, Obama is so weak the Democrats are thinking of replacing him, and the notion that Obama can’t be beaten is patently false. It would be more plausible to say he can hardly win against a warm body.

This election cycle, more than any time in recent history, we don’t have to resort to a centrist or “moderate.” A conservative can win. So it isn’t the lefties and moderates who will determine the direction our country takes in 2012. It is you.

Now look, Greece and Italy, two bankrupt nations, were just forced to accept new presidents, both of whom are big central bankers — the group that blew up the global economy — and on top of that, they are members of the Trilateral Commission, a group that — like the CFR — has designs on world government. That is not a democracy, Folks. It is a technocracy of the EU kind, where your vote is meaningless and you are told what to do, where to sit, what medicine you can take (not natural medicine. Monsanto owns you)  and what you are allowed to raise in your garden, if anything.

America, you do not have to don this yoke. You aren’t bankrupt yet. Well, I could be wrong there….  But at any rate, you don’t have to accept a leader who is in lockstep with the NWO gang who wants to micromanage your life more tightly than the CP controlled the slaves in the USSR. As a member of the CFR, Newt is one of them. He will never be one of us, not even close!

Of course, defeating Newt would require a sufficient number of Americans to toss aside the GOP Kool-Aid, stop being spectators and join the fight!

Do you have it in you?

Don Hank

 

Quote:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS–DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti-family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de-constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

 http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-President-Republican-Primary.html

 

Who owns the movement?

Anwer: Whoever wants it bad enough.

by Don Hank

I caught a lot of flack from my conservative readers over my article suggesting that left and right should come together on the issue of the banking oligarchy. I pointed out that the only president to break the power of the banking elites in America was Andrew Jackson, a democrat, and that ironically, the Tea Party – the antithesis of Democrat ideology – now sounded more like Jackson than any prominent Democrat politicians or writers.

But the elephant in the room was the Occupy Wall Street movement’s apparent link to ACORN, and hence to our far left administration.

I knew about the ACORN link when I wrote the article. In fact, it seems Obama’s favorite Maoist Van Jones also may well be linked to the movement.

All of this is very bad indeed, and there has never been a leftist-organized movement that has been successfully used to the advantage of the right or of constitutionally minded Americans before.

But if my hunch is correct, and if God is with us (or in other words, if we deserve a break in God’s eyes), the Obama camp may be in for a surprise.

You see, there are two separate and opposite narratives going on in this same movement.

The narrative of the group that thought it was in charge is figuring prominently in New York City, blaming Wall Street and capitalism in general, never mind that Big Business is no longer governed by free market capitalist rules but by a series of machinations based on a government-business alliance, known as corporatism (or as fascism by the less charitable).  A perfect example was Apple, headed by the recently deceased Steve Jobs. Around the last elections, about 91% of Jobs’ political donations went to the Democrats, who openly oppose the free market, while the other 9% went to the GOP, which at least pays lip service to the free market. So what does that tell you?

A free market ideology is virtually absent from Big Business today, as though the captains of industry were in a hurry to see their own demise. It is nothing short of surreal.

However, the narrative of the group that is rapidly assuming control of the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, in Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and elsewhere does indeed support free market principles. Many of these people seem to be coming from Ron Paul’s vast network, and they can be described as independents and libertarians, who, as you know, draw their intellectual sustenance from the free market enthusiasts of the Austrian School, and from Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the like, and, for whatever faults they may have, they loathe leftist Statism as much as Obama and fellow travelers love it.

According to Asia Times, far from calling for more government intervention to tax the rich, the new (and growing) narrative is a call “to end the banking cartel’s hold on Washington.”

This is a narrative not supported by either party. The GOP likes the corporatism behind the banking oligarchy’s power, which it is desperately trying to continue passing off as “capitalism” and “free market principles.” Likewise, the Democrats like corporatism because it brings money into their private and public coffers with generous donations from corporate fat cats who know that staying on the good side of the Dems will pay big dividends for them, and likewise, that failing to fawn all over these socialists will bring down a torrent of regulator interventions as it did on Gibson Guitar Corp., threatening to drive them out of business.

Probably the last best representatives of free market capitalism are to be found under H in the phone book: Handymen. These men are part of what used to be called the black market in the Soviet Union.

They pay little or no taxes, they hire no one and they are all but invisible to government.

We can only hope that our free market is soon restored to the point that the little guy, including the handyman, can at least dream of working his way into business ownership again, through hard work, creativity, intelligence and a benevolent, laissez-faire government that has no plans either to entangle him in an unholy alliance with it or to squash him like a bug simply for being independent and giving Americans – not Chinese or Mexicans or anyone else — jobs.

There’s a movement out there that started out for the purpose of further destroying sound American economic principles. But in the right hands, this same movement, with a narrative change, could very well bring us back to the free market, over the protests of the hapless left.

It’s ours for the taking.

‘Social issues’ are related to liberty and limited gov’t!

By Anthony Horvath
© 2010

Apparently, a letter has been written to GOP leaders by conservative homosexuals and some tea-party activists requesting that the GOP lay off its traditional pro-life stance. That would be horrible for many reasons. One reason: In actuality, de-emphasizing life issues is a threat to conservative notions about limited government and individual liberty.

The very first thing that has to be made clear is that those in the culture of death themselves strongly believe that social issues and economic issues are linked. The pro-death camp is perfectly able to present their “social issues” in economic terms. Not only are they able, but they are happy to do so.

A brief glance at history reveals this to be utterly obvious and conclusively true. To take one prominent example, the eugenics movement was very concerned about improving the race, but it was more than that. Activists’ position on these “social issues” was closely connected to the economic realities on the ground as they perceived them, as this quote from Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) will quickly corroborate:

The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of their small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. … The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community, when we become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race; when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born. [“Pivot of Civilization,” page 99-100]

Continue reading »


Anthony Horvath is the executive director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. He speaks often on pro-life issues and his ministry hosts an online apologetics conference dedicated to the defense of the family through the arts.

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.

I Wish the GOP was the Party of No

by A.R. Horvath

Obama has been on a tear, raging against the Republicans that they are the ‘party of no.’  From a recent speech:

“There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power — the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: Cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

If only this were true!  If only the GOP were eschewing new ideas and holding tenaciously to the perfectly good old ones!  If only.   Not that I am conceding Obama’s argument, here.  Either he is an idiot or we are- or he thinks we are.  The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D), did, and let us remember that this ‘inherited’ recession came only in the last few months of an 8 year term.  Shame, shame, Mr. Obama.  But I digress.

As the candidate field shapes up for the 2012 presidential election there is an opportunity to lay bare the fatal flaw in GOP ‘conservatism’ in the hopes that maybe something can be done about it.   Let me be clear, this isn’t a new development.  The problems began decades ago- even before we were born.   To help me get at what I’m talking about, let me begin with what may appear to be another digression.

Much talk has been made about Sarah Palin’s intelligence and education and her suitability to be president of these united states.  And this on the conservative side!  Have we ever wondered why we need our presidents and politicians so sophisticated?

We perceive that a high level of sophistication is necessary because the issues that our politicians will have to grapple with are so hugely complex that on no one of them could the president get away with saying, “this is above my pay grade.”    The underlying assumption, however, is that these politicians are going to have to actually navigate these hugely complex issues.

Therein lies the problem.  Constitutionally speaking, precious little is supposed to be done by the Federal government.  There shouldn’t be a thing called social security.  Or a department of education.  It shouldn’t require three doctoral degrees to balance out how taxation and distribution impacts the whole economy.  In short, the reason why ‘intelligence’ is needed in government these days is because we all take as our working assumption that the job of our politicians is to tinker, tinker, and tweak.

Now, this is to be expected from the Democrats.  Continue reading

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

The rotten fruits of the “carbon credit” scam

The notion of “global warming” has been used to introduce perhaps the biggest tax in history, and one of the avenues for this tax was so-called “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits.”

Fortunately, the American people have not completely fallen for this scam as yet. But the UK, which has long labored under the heavy hand of two essentially foreign governments — their “own” out-of-touch “leaders” and the EU — has had little choice. Almost none of the elected leaders in the UK there are in touch with the people, who are increasingly aware that they are being scammed on a grand scale. (While serving as the head of state, Tony Blair was also the head of the Fabian Socitey, whose avowed purpose is to undermine democracy and introduce Marxism — Karl Marx’s sister was one of the founders).

Now please pay attention: America now faces the same choices as they once did: either we go it alone as the exceptional nation we have been or we take that same turn into oblivion and let the “elites” take us over. So far we have done a terrible job of maintaining our sovereignty and our representative government. Many “conservatives” and even the somewhat more enlightened Tea Party people have fallen for the RINO neocon scam in MA, where Scott Brown was presented as a “conservative”. CPAC portrayed Scott, Mitt Romney and other RINOs the same way, although, to the credit of the attendees, in a poll taken by CPAC, Romney lost to Ron Paul — a sign that the leadership of groups like this is no longer calling the shots.  A McCain loss in his Senate campaign in Arizona would be a further sign that even without any higher-up leadership, the grassroots can now make up its own mind.

Our heads are very slowly emerging from the sand, but there are a lot of GOP die-hards out there who keep longing for the “good old days” of the globalist, open-borders GW Bush administration. They haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The press release appearing below is one of the most amazing but likewise, one if the saddest, pieces  of news Laigle’s Forum has ever received from an independent source.

It is in fact the fulfillment of what WND’s Jerome Corsi had foreseen and written about earlier (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118953). It shows not only the extent of the criminal activity of the world elites but also the extent to which they will go to hush up their activities.

The sender, the assistant to Nigel Farage, founder of the UK Independent Party (UKIP), one of the most outspoken voices in Europe and a man who has consistently opposed the European Union dictatorship — even from his position as a Member of Parliament in the EU, sent out the press release immediately after dictating it, showing the outrageous consequences of “carbon credits.”

To sum it up, 1 billion pounds sterling  in carbon credits were given to an Indian-owned UK steelworks so that the plant could be closed down — ostensibly to save the world from the emissions caused by this plant — leaving 1,700 workers jobless. And here is the rub: in Robin-Hood fashion, the cool billion of UK taxpayer money will be invested in steel plants in India, where no one believes in the “carbon offset” schemes and where the emissions will continue unabated, with nothing of the stated goal being accomplished.  The net result is an enormous transfer of wealth by Fabian-style stealth from a “rich” (but soon to be poor if the elites have their way) country to a developing country. I hope you understand that the end game of the elites is to “spread the wealth around” as Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet or anything else. It is like Chicago-style power politics on a world scale.

It is vitally important for us to be aware that all globalists and globablist organizations (like the CFR) want only to spread the wealth, Marxist style. They do not want prosperity for you or your children and, as evidenced hereinbelow, they could care less about the environment or “global warming.”  And here is the smoking gun in Mr. Nigel Farage’s press release, as dictated to his secretary.

Don Hank

Sir

Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesborough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (“mothballed” is the euphemism)  It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.  By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

There’s more.  The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP’s leader in the EU’s “parliament”, Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC’s “Question-Time” programme, from Middlesborough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the “Question-Time” panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week’s Sunday Express, has also been “pulled”.

 Yours etc

 

On another note, please let us know what you think of the below-linked post “Enjoy the internet while you can.” For example, is there anything offensive in the way it is written? Please let us know either by sending us a note at zoilandon@msn.com or by adding a comment at the bottom of this latest post “The rotten fruits of…”

Thank you!

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/enjoy-the-internet-while-you-can/

Further reading 

Climate change hoax:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/10/1181/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-takes-hit-take-action-on-dod-pro-homo-policy/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/11/30/the-real-climate-conference-in-copenhagen/

European Union as dictatorship:

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/03/25/government-by-deception/

http://laiglesforum.com/europe-a-dictatorship/

Freedom threatened:

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/08/31/816/

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/11/26/america-in-full-suicide-mode/

One State Strategy for Bringing Down Obama

Laigle’s Forum staff writer Anthony Horvath has posted a column on the Cypress Times describing a winning strategy for forcing Obama to confront his citizenship questions by relying on the efforts of a single state.  That column was picked up by Worldnetdaily.com, whose founder, Joseph Farah, is mentioned in the opening paragraphs.

Asking people of principle to look the other way in the face of what possibly could be the highest act of arrogance in modern history just isn’t possible.  If Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president then that’s that.  Furthermore, the burden of proof is on Obama to show that he is constitutionally qualified.  It isn’t Farah’s job to prove he isn’t.   We’re talking about the leader of the (so far) free world, not a dog catcher.  It is too important to ignore.

On the other hand, it is a simple fact that the people on the other side of this issue have every advantage.  Let’s face it.  The opinions of many Americans are formed by no more than a glance at the day’s headlines, the quick blurb at the 6 o’clock news, and the clever jabs on Stewart’s Daily Show.  Combine this with the average American’s deep fear that someone might think that he is ‘one of those extremists’ and the Left has all they need to defeat a ‘Birther’ candidate.  It really isn’t a winning issue… yet.

So how to stick to principle and win?  I have an idea.

Read the whole column.

Book/DVD list for your April 15 Tea Party

Book/DVD list for your April 15 tea party

 

By Donald Hank

The local tea party in Lancaster PA seems to have been organized by 2 fine ladies who, on the tea party web site, also recommend a book list for invitees. Good for them. Much of the list, apparently originating with Ron Paul, is made up of the True Liberals, or libertarians, like Ludwig van Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and many others.

I emailed these ladies and thanked them for doing this and then said there were a few other books that Americans ought to read.

I wrote:

For today’s world, the most important information – most of which your school and/or college probably made sure you missed – is the story of the socialist dictators of the 20th century.

An invaluable contribution to your list would be “Harvest of Sorrow” by Robert Conquest, describing the slaughter of millions of Ukrainian farmers, “Son of the Revolution” by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro, an eye-witness account of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the 3 disk DVD set China, a Century of Revolution, directed by Sue Williams (one of the co-producers was Karma Hinton, my first Chinese teacher). You will immediately see the unmistakable similarity between the Red Guard and ACORN.

Further DVDs: Repentance, a top-notch surrealistic Russian film (RU title: Pokayanie) about a Stalin like figure, Est-Oueste (East-West), an excellent film about a French family that visits the Soviet Union in the early post-WW II years and is trapped there. The Chinese film To Live is also an artistic masterpiece but at the same time, a realistic portrayal of the tragedy of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

Others: A somewhat tedious but trail blazing book “The Black Book of Communism” was written by a group of French communists under Stéphane Courtois who decided to come clean about the death toll of the 20th century, namely, almost 100 million innocents slaughtered throughout the world in the name of “social justice.”

Further, the Russian film Nest of Noblefolk (RU: Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo), an adaptation of the Turgenev story, shows the remarkable similarity between the mid 1800s and our 60s, with the elite classes talking about the same ideas that threw our society into moral and social turmoil. Shot in the Russian countryside, it is a cinema buff’s delight, with gorgeous photography, period-correctness in all aspects, soulful Russian gypsy music, a gripping love story with 2 intertwined love triangles and a surprise ending.

Note, however, that Turgenev’s best description of the early revolutionaries is given in his novel “Fathers and Sons,” which reflects the ideas that we considered revolutionary in our 1960s. In reality, we were a century later than the Russians in introducing ordered chaos, which is why freedom survived so long here. Nothing stands in the way of totalitarianism now – except you. And you know what? I believe in you.

Best,

Don Hank

TEA PARTIES AROUND THE NATION (find yours here):

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34348