Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon?

Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon? 

by Don Hank

There is a good chance that those “conservative” sites you read are not actually conservative but instead are Neocon or a combination of Neocon and Libertarian. Let me put it bluntly: Neoconservative is roughly the diametric opposite of conservative, as explained here.

You will remember my article Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?, which shows how WND grotesquely distorted a NYT report on a member of the Russian public who posted, possible in a blog, that Romania could be reduced to a “smoldering ruin” if there were a confrontation between that country and Russia. WND falsely reported that his quote came from a Russian official.

Now you know that first of all, I would never have made such a mistake. But more importantly, if I had, I would have printed a retraction and an apology as soon as I learned of my error. That was how decent journalists behaved back when there was an ounce of decency left in the profession. But you can no longer call it a profession, more of a money grab.

By way of an update, let me tell you that shortly after my article appeared, a reader advised me that WND had removed that article like a thief in the night.

No apology, no retraction, just a surgical removal.

Recently, our friend Julio Severo wrote an article exposing certain Neocons posing as conservatives. He sent it to Free Republic and it is still archived at that site. You can read it here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Julio writes to his readers:

“Friends

I published my article on Cliff Kincaid in the conservative website Free Republic. See a copy saved here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Now Free Republic has banned me. See my Free Republic account as saved here: http://archive.is/Z4MS1

I had been publishing my articles on Free Republic since 2008, and only now I saw that they are partners with Cliff Kincaid.

Free Republic says that they advocate FREE SPEECH from a conservative viewpoint, but they killed the free speech of a Brazilian conservative writer who used no dirty language [the way Olavo de Carvalho does, for example, as described here  – Don] and no personal attack to talk about Kincaid and his ideas.

Julio Severo”

I told Julio his article on Kincaid was still up at the Free Republic archives and that there were a lot of comments, all agreeing with him and mostly mocking Kincaid.

He responded:

“They banned me yesterday, immediately after I published about Kincaid. I called them [on the phone] because they called me a ‘troll,’ but I explained that I am not a troll and that I am a Brazilian writer, but they did not care. They only answered to me “GOOD BYE!” and hung up the telephone.

See this contact information:
Free Republic, LLC
PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
jimrob@psnw.com (559) 273-1400”

 

I wrote back:

“Julio,

Neocons are the real trolls. They pretend to be conservative and post on conservative issues, but hate the truth when you point out facts that they want covered up.

I warned my readers of this evil ideology here:

http://laiglesforum.com/our-father-commands-be-wise/3377.htm

You need to read that to understand the enemy.

All Russia bashers are Neocons. Most of them write for money. Kincaid’s group has received millions in donations.

Don”

 

This site details the source of Kincaid’s funding (ie, for Accuracy in Media”):

“A minimum of eight separate oil companies are known to have been contributors in the early 80s. Only three donors of the remainder[clarification needed] are given by name: the Allied Educational Foundation (founded and chaired by George Barasch), Shelby Cullom Davis, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife gave $2 million to Accuracy in Media between 1977 and 1997.[24]

With this kind of funding coming in, you don’t need talent and you don’t need accuracy. In fact, you can be a liar and a drooling idiot. All you need is slavish obedience to your funding sources.

And who are these funding sources?

Shellby Cullom Davis, is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, which claims to be conservative but somehow, according to this site:

“The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”.[37] This was also the model for Mitt Romney‘s health care plan in Massachusetts.[38]

According to wikipedia, Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave Kincaid’s AIM $2 million, was affiliated with the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), aptly described as Neoconservative and having on its board such notable Neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. One of its board members is or was Carla Anderson, listed as the Chairwoman of the CFR – the New World Order flagship that wants all borders eliminated ASAP.

Oh, and Scaife also funded WND. Are you connecting the dots?

So Kincaid can pretend to be conservative, but the Neocon label is stuck to him like glue.

Below is my spoof on Kincaid’s silly comments on Donald Trump, suggesting Trump has some sort of sinister relationship with the Kremlin:

 

OMG, Wait ’til you read THIS! The smoking gun for sure!:

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/follow-trumps-money-to-moscow/

 

No WONDER Donald Trump is being nice to Putin. He sinisterly wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Another building contractor running for president just so he can get a contract in Moscow. Why do they keep doing this?

I don’t know about you but I am very disappointed.

After this revealing article by the gifted researcher Cliff Kincaid, we now KNOW that Trump will be sinisterly trading away all of the Pentagon’s top secret secrets in exchange for the sinister Moscow Trump Tower contract, don’t we?

What’s that you say? Guccifer ALREADY gave away our top secret secrets to Russia?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Just the same, I really thought Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. But now it looks like he only has sinister plans to make Russian tourism great.  Again…?

Mr. Kincaid is a GENIUS to have figured this sinister intrigue all out.

Now what does America do?

Wait, you say if Trump builds the Moscow hotel, that would bring money into the US instead of the other way around?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

But here is what Cliffy’s article also suggests, and boy you tell me this is not sinister: The article suggests, I think, that Trump is angling for Putin’s job. He no doubt has sinister plans to become the president of Russia so that, as a prestigious representative of not one but TWO world powers, he can build Trump Towers all over the world, including North Korea (I bet that’s the main target and Cliffy would no doubt agree)! Or at the very least, he could become the chief bellhop at Trump Tower Moscow.

At the very sinister least!

Cliffy’s message to America: Vote for Hillary!

Don Hank

PS: I know some of you are wondering why I would devote any time to this stuff (like I did here – which is why Cliffy is not very fond of me). However, I learned long ago that reading Neocon writings is therapeutic. Dealing in real world issues can be depressing and stressful. This is my way of escaping. Thank you, Cliffy!

Yes, Folks, some lame-brained billionaire paid Cliff $2 million to share this kind of “insight” with the world.

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.

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.

Stop supporting evil in high places

Stop supporting evil in high places

 

The following is an article published in the American Spectator in 2005, but the ideas it contains have largely been ignored since then, as “Christian” groups continue to use the language of the Left to support unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and to confer respect to lazy, ignorant, ambitious and/or evil politicians who do not deserve your respect. We should have learned our lesson since Roe v Wade but have learned nothing, instead following the lead of the ungodly in churches and Christian organizations that claim to be helping but side with the enemy.

John Haskins, whose web site The Underground Journal, I highly recommend, is a warrior who has never been known to compromise with the Left. He and colleague Gregg Jackson pointed out some time ago that same-sex marriage has never in fact been legal anywhere because the Supreme Court judges of states whose courts supported it do not have the support of the Constitution in so doing and therefore do not deserve your respect and the legitimization you confer to their decisions. These officials are nothing but usurpers, their deeds are unlawful and as long as you honor them with your respect, you are an accessory to their crime. Haskins believes that “pro-family” and “Christian” groups make matters much worse when they plead cases from the standpoint that these leftist judges are legitimate and their decisions are legally binding. The mantra is “we must avoid a constitutional crisis at all costs,” but the crisis is already here and was caused by the judges themselves. So what this translates to is: “we must avoid resolving the constitutional crisis.” A constitutional challenge is precisely what these lawless judges need to keep them in check, but everyone just follows the lead of the pseudo-conservatives and “moderates.” The result so far is a Marxist “president” who cannot prove he meets the qualifications to be president – thanks to a spineless Supreme Court that will not honor any challenges, no matter how reasonable and well-founded they are, and thanks to a populace that has been indoctrinated by schools, universities and media into accepting the unacceptable.

I have always argued that public officials have no right under the Constitution generally to change natural language and specifically to tamper with the definition of the word “marriage” as it has existed for millennia in all world cultures – not just Christian ones. In natural languages as they have evolved everywhere, independently of each other over the years, the equivalents for the English word “marriage” have always referred to a union between a man and a woman. Although in some Muslim countries and in the Mormon community, there has been a provision for men marrying more than one woman, in no traditional community has there ever been a provision for marriage between same-sex partners, which has universally been regarded as an absurd notion. It still is absurd and always will be, but the International Left has decided to carve out a new “victim” group, ie, homosexuals, and has invented the notion of “gay marriage” to prop up this group in return for their loyalty. Why the expenditure of so much effort for such a tiny group?

There are several reasons, including the fact that traditional man-woman marriage is an obstacle to the Left’s agenda of controlling children’s minds from cradle to adulthood and beyond, but the main reason is to undermine Christianity, which has traditionally stood in the way of the Left. The ultimate goal is to charge anyone who opposes same-sex unions with a “hate” crime. This effectively criminalizes certain parts of the Bible, opening to door to further-reaching “hate” crimes, for example, banning the mention of hell by preachers.

 It wasn’t until Evangelical groups began promoting the diabolical idea of partnering with government that the Left was able to overcome the religous obstacles to their goals, as witnessed by the fact that close to 30% of young evangelicals voted for Obama last election. In addition, 54% of Catholics also voted for Obama. Without the “Christian” vote, the current rapid erosion of the free market and nationalization of banks and business (both communist policies) would not have happened. The Obama debacle has taken on new significance since the latest WND report that Obama is now filling White House posts with Muslims, some of whom are terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

What can you do? Roundly reject the language of the Left: For instance, don’t ever say or write the words “gay marriage,” “choice” when referring to the murder of the unborn, or “strike down” when referring to laws opposed by the Supreme Courts of states or the US Supreme Court. And do not allow your friends or family to use the newspeak of the Left. These soulless people can usurp power only if we lend them credibility. We have been doing that for too long. Listen: When was the last time your pastor said homosexual marriage and homosexuality are sinful? When has he spoken of a hell to which the lost are destined?

If you can’t remember, then you are probably supporting evil in the form of offerings and tithes. Time to leave. Time to say no. Time to fight or lose everything you love and everything you have always wanted for your children.

Donald Hank

 

No More Striking Down Constitutions

Why are even conservatives afraid to call things by their name?

By John Haskins
Published 11/8/2005 12:05:11 AM

Conservatives contemplating George Bush’s judicial legacy — and his bizarre vision of Harriet Miers among the nine highest potentates in the democratic world — should expect no counter-revolution. True, he promised constitutionalist judges. But talking constitutionalism (like talking Christianity) is easy.

Our governing elite punishes unvarnished clarity about our Constitution. Intellectual honesty, for lawyers, schoolteachers, psychologists, professors and actors, is costly. Most lie low or join the enforcers. Surely even Roberts, Scalia, and Alito see the gap between them and the Founding Fathers, for whom precedent was impotent against the Constitution.

Absurd though it is, only “constitutional” conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal “mainstream” savors precedents they’ve shot down — or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent. But the obvious is hard to see, especially as monumental, abstract questions are addressed in isolation from thoughts of personal advancement. The realm of the mind and methodology that do this are not the pragmatic part that wins court cases, campaigns, and useful friendships. The former withers when neglected for the latter. Even “all star” conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.

Read more.