John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Wed May 7 10:54:35 MDT 2008
You deserve some good news <http://laiglesforum.com/2008/05/07/262/>
May 7th, 2008 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Academe
<http://laiglesforum.com/category/culture/>, First Amendment
<http://laiglesforum.com/category/first-amendment/>, Gay agenda
<http://laiglesforum.com/category/gay-agenda/>, Global governance
<http://laiglesforum.com/category/global-governance/>, Human Rights
*You deserve some good news*
By Donald Hank
Recently Joseph Farah suggested that despite the bad batch of
presidential candidates from which to choose, he is optimistic, because
he believes our institutions are changing in a positive way. I believe
he is on to something. Last year WND's hardcopy periodical Whistleblower
dedicated an entire issue to abortion. Despite the dismal reports it
contained, eg, that more unborn babies had died in abortions since
Wade-Roe than in Hitler's and Stalin's murder sprees combined, the whole
tenor of the issue was upbeat. The good news was that it was becoming
increasingly difficult to find doctors to perform abortions. This in
turn, I think, was certainly due to the excellent work done on the front
lines by ordinary people writing letters to legislators and newspapers,
attending rallies or carrying posters and picketing at strategic
locations throughout the US. There had always been a lot of controversy
over those posters with graphic photos of dead fetuses and their body
parts, which are certainly hard to look at and take us way out of our
But oddly, many of the people who hated these posters and the truth they
display so graphically were the ones who wound up giving ground on the
issue of abortion. These included prominent Democrats and even some of
the pioneers of the abortion movement.
The truth, resisted so fiercely for so long, had ultimately sunk in and
had had a devastating effect on the abortion industry. So much so that
no matter who becomes president, they will have to contend with an
increasingly mighty backlash against abortion, and the prospect of
giving ground or losing popularity.
Likewise, in one of our recent article
<http://laiglesforum.com/2008/05/02/261/>s, we saw how author Ryan
Sorba's speech at Smith College was curtailed by a bunch of howling
Someone who saw this article emailed me in a pessimistic tone suggesting
the world may be coming to an end or the like because of this incident.
I told this emailer not to worry, that things like this fix themselves
when the public becomes aware of how their rights are being threatened.
I was thinking back on things that had happened in the past that would
cause people gloom but that were corrected when the news came out, and
not by coincidence, but precisely because the news came out and was
presented in an objective way that showed how the event in question was
a threat to this or that right.
For example, consider last summer's failed amnesty bill that was killed
by the grassroots in an elitist Senate that was suddenly overpowered by
regular people like you and me. Or look at the Security and Prosperity
Partnership (SPP), an issue that came to a head when the presidents of
the US, Mexico and Canada met secretly in Canada. The public outcry was
so great that ranking officials have recently declared the SPP a dead
issue. Of course, that means that it will morph into something else,
which in turn will have to be exposed to the sunlight.
The good news is that the public outcry against supranational
enterprises of this type has helped chip away at the stealthy
effectiveness with which they had once succeeded almost unopposed.
Laigle's Forum played a part with some of our articles beginning back in
June 2006 with a 3 part series containing: an original column entitled
The supranational movement
our translation from the HazteOir web site (in Spain) entitled The call
effect in Spain
and our translation (from the Portuguese) of Olavo de Carvalho's
scholarly expose Behind the subversion
<http://laiglesforum.com/2006/06/27/behind-the-subversion/>, and later
others, including my column at WorldNetDaily entitled Europe's frog stew
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44030> and a
column entitled The EU is an evil empire
But getting back to the riot at Smith College, here is why I am no
longer worried that our First Amendment may not survive the homosexual
Today there was this video
at ABC News that shows a sea change.
Now don't be surprised if ABC has taken it down by the time you click.
But the damage has been done, and not to our side, but to the homosexual
cause. This video is the first report I have ever seen presented at a
mainstream news site (I assume it aired on TV) in which the reporter
actually show objectively how homosexual bullies deny people their
rights, muzzle opponents and squelch debate.
What really stunned me was that, with a candor and balance I have never
seen in the mainstream news, the reporter tells us that a member of the
American Psychiatric Association had tried for 2 years to organize a
symposium discussing why people become gay and whether a gay can "go
straight," but that the gay community had staged a protest so vigorous
that the symposium had to be cancelled. Until this time, the public had
not been privy to the fact that the gay agenda is directly opposed to
free discussion. The report concludes:
"He [the organizer of the symposium] wishes people would stop shouting
and start talking."
I have been outspoken about homosexual issues
the past and was never intimidated by these activists. I like to think
this is because I have always taken my orders from my
Commander-in-Chief, who said I was to love sinners. My theory is that
perhaps those who shy away from confrontations, or give in to "gay"
marriage demands, for example, are those who down inside really do hate,
resent or fear gay people and are afraid these untoward feelings might
surface in a confrontation (as they did, for example, when Michael
Savage told a homosexual caller: "you should die of AIDS"). At any rate,
for whatever reason, by and large, the media, including most of the
"conservative" media, have always been particularly gutless in
countering or even questioning the gay agenda.
But ABC has started a trend that, in my perception, is new. It was long
I also suspect that Ben Stein's expose of academic intolerance has
actually shaken more than a few consciences, just like those pro-life
activists who mightily smote the national conscience, and his film
/Expelled/ may in fact have influenced ABC's reporters.
At any rate, for whatever reason, ABC did the right thing in suggesting
that the screaming stop and the talk begin.
Thank you, ABC!
My point is that no matter how bad our next president is or how much he
or she differs from the grassroots in terms of viewpoint, politicians
are not omnipotent. They rely on a certain degree of popularity to carry
out their agendas. You and I still decide whether they get that.
And God decides whether or not they succeed.
We had previously reported on the Holmen church-and-state issue where a
national atheist organization tried to sue to have a religious symbol
removed. Here is Anthony Horvath's latest report:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk