State governor bans Christian tradition in “Land of the Free”

State governor bans Christian tradition in “Land of the Free”


by Don Hank

Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia has usurped power over his own citizens and abolished religious freedom in his state by vetoing house bill HB757, with the text:


 “A BILL to be entitled an Act to protect religious freedoms; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion;…” [my emphasis]


This veto, if translated into law, will effectively end the rights of all traditional Christians in Georgia to hold to their faith and to the Bible. Contrast this with the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Now you will admit that whatever guarantees of human rights apply legally to the national legislature would have to apply to the state legislatures. Otherwise, the states could blithely render federal laws null and void and step on human rights within their states.

As you can see from the above quote, HB 757 did not discriminate against anyone. It simply guaranteed that religious officials could remain within the confines of their faith by refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Any same-sex couple who wished to be “married” under these conditions could apply to a state official or to a religious official who recognized same sex marriage as a “right.”

By vetoing HB757, Governor Deal effectively abolished the rights of church officials to remain within the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As a sidebar, note that adherence to this traditional definition is not only a religious or even a Christian tradition. It is a human tradition that has stood since prehistoric times. As a linguist, I am particularly aware of the features of foreign languages, including ancient ones. I can therefore state with certainty that, of the over 600 existing world languages, there is none in which the equivalent of the word “marriage” in English has traditionally applied to anything but a union between a man and a woman. I have discussed this in greater detail here and I urge you to read this commentary because it explores the linguistic aspect, which is almost invariably ignored).

I am not disputing that in some cultures, polygamous marriage was recognized. For example, a man was sometimes allowed to marry more than one woman. However, none of these marriages were performed for the purpose of enabling sexual relationships to occur within the same sex. Therefore, in vetoing HB 757, Governor Deal upset not only the 2000 year Christian traditional definition, the 4000 year Hebrew traditional definition but in fact, a universal, religious and non-religious traditional definition that was never seriously challenged until a few decades ago. The issue that no one talks about is language, and yet language is really central to everything (In the beginning was the word… John 1:1). There is a human right that few laws have protected and few authorities have discussed, simply because this right has rarely – until recently – been challenged, and that is the right to one’s own traditions and culture. In a previous commentary (see the heading “Culture” therein), I have shown that the global elites, including the US government, are hostile to tradition and culture. By definition that makes them hostile to common sense, the mental faculty that defends all of human society from total chaos and ultimate destruction. Intuitively, we know that common sense is synonymous with survival. Incredibly, we are actually not supposed to survive as a species.

Folks, I have a dream of some day performing an experiment, which I will explain below.

You know how the msm and the Western political establishment keep telling us, or at least suggesting, that Russia is the biggest threat to freedom and that we must beef up NATO so that we can eventually defeat them? (See my commentaries on NATO, for example, here, here, here and you may also do a site search at to find more on NATO).

Now – aside from the fact that a confrontation with Russia would almost certainly lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia and China et al., which would almost certainly end all life on earth if it happened – the main issue in this anti-Russian campaign is the following question:

Is Russia really a threat to freedom?

Now reason tells us that a US party can reasonably claim that Russia is a threat to freedom only if the US can be shown to afford its citizens more freedom than Russia affords its citizens. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical for Americans to accuse Russia of denying freedom, or Putin (a duly, democratically, elected president) of being a “dictator.”

The official and media opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy is clear cut evidence that our country has very limited political freedom, ie, the freedom to choose our own leaders. The same can be said of Europe, where the EU attempts to dictate to member states to open their borders to oft times unvetted “refugees” that demonstrably pose a major risk to citizens’ lives and safety as well as to their cultures.

So the purpose of the experiment I have in mind would be to determine if the US has more freedom than Russia or the other way around.

My experimental method would be to carry a sign first in a busy street in a major US city bearing the text:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Then I would translate this into Russian and carry the sign down a busy street in a major Russian city, securing first the permissions to do so in each of the respective cities, of course.

I would record the responses of passersby in each city on video and draw my conclusions from the responses.

What do you suppose the responses would be in the US? In Russia?

Let me know, preferably by posting your best guess in the forum below. (Unless you register first, your post will not appear until I have gone in and approved it, so keep an eye on this site).

Thank you!




UK elites want to muzzle Christians

The UK political elites have come up with a legal scheme almost identical in its content to our EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) law. Anyone who keeps up with alerts coming out of Christian, libertarian or conservative groups in Europe will easily see that the same fascistic programs are being pursued over there as they are here in the US. That will not surprise anyone who knows about the international left and its agenda and the scope of its action. But, sadly, few of us do.

For those who have never been exposed to this concept, you need to understand that the Communist Manifesto, written when socialism was in its infancy, already spelled out that the communist must oppose family and religion. This all-important fact is almost completely ignored by Americans, and consequently, when they hear of plans to “protect” homosexuals, they buy it at face value, believing that this particular sexual orientation is undergoing some horrible holocaust-like pogrom and is subject to economic persecution that threatens the livelihood of every single member.

This could not be further from the truth. As David Kupelian points out in his book “The Marketing of Evil,” homosexuals have a higher than average income and level of wealth.

The real agenda behind “protection” of homosexuals and same-sex marriage bills, for example, is to take civilization one step closer to the utopia envisioned by Marx and Engels.

If this seems surprising to you (or even if it doesn’t), please read this Christian response to the Equality Bill, which was recently defeated in the House of Lords.

Don Hank


By Graham Wood, UK

The defeat of the government’s Equality Bill by the House of Lords recently was of huge importance and significance, because it brought to a halt, albeit only temporarily, a long succession of laws restricting Christian liberty and freedoms.  The Bill sought amongst other things to impose a perception of “equality” on Christians and churches and a duty on all public bodies, including Christian employers, to ensure that no discrimination takes place against homosexuals or lesbians in employment.

The Bill if passed would have compelled churches and faith groups to a course wholly alien to their doctrinal positions and ethos.  Already Christians critical of homosexuality, or declining directly or indirectly  to associate with this ideology have met with opposition and even suspension or dismissal from their places of employment,  on what can only be described  as grounded on unnecessary or flimsy grounds.


What was intended as a law to prevent discrimination and to ensure “equality” has in fact led to cases of direct discrimination against others who on conscientious grounds have objected to being compelled to

recognize and associate with an ethos with which  they fundamentally disagree.  Whilst the intention of the law may have been good, its practical outworking, and that of similar legislation already in place, has resulted in the very opposite of the original intention, and so reverse discrimination occurs.

In addition, such legislation is seen by Christians as being at best, a non existent problem, and at worst, a direct attack upon  long held basic  freedoms,  of opinion,  of expression and  of association,  formerly taken for granted under our Common law.

 These have been secured for us at very great cost over the course of centuries by defenders of liberty from the ever present threat of loss through the encroachments of arbitrary governments which are often hungry to accrue power to the State at the expense of individual freedom.  Such lovers of liberty believed these principles to be so fundamentally important, especially those grounded on conscience, that they were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve such freedoms for their posterity.   We do well to remember the costly price of those freedoms once again under threat.

Instead of the Common law assumption that all is allowed, except what which is directly forbidden by statute law or which endangers or threatens others, we now have increasingly the assertion by the State that it alone is the dispenser of such rights, to be granted or withheld through the will of Parliament or even by other unelected organsations.

  In this respect we should remember that the Equality Bill and its predecessors have come to us primarily through mandatory European Union “directives”.  As we know, these ride roughshod over the long held accepted norms of democratic political accountability, not to mention our national characteristics of easy tolerance of minorities, even when their  views may strongly differ from our own.   Indeed, the imposition of a homosexual ideology as seen in this Bill and similar legislation has the hallmarks of institutionalised  bigotry and intolerance by the State, and ironically, a main function of which is to protect minorities to live in freedom and  harmony within the rest of society.


  Aware of increasing surveillance by the State on every aspect of private and public life, together with the avalanche of restrictive legislation militating against the freedom of the individual one observer notes: “slowly, and the political elites hope imperceptibly, we are being brought under totalitarian control.  It goes largely unnoticed because the moves seem unconnected and journalists and opposition politicians are part of the same ruling class.  This ‘ideological caste’ is made up of cultural Marxists that admits only those into power with the same views, and expels after disgracing, any who dissent”   Is not this the central tenet of “political correctness” – i.e. an imposed standard of homogenous uniformity?.   One familiar example is that of labeling dissenters to the ‘global warming’ theory as “deniers”, a pejorative term associated with those who ‘deny’ the Nazi holocaust of Jews in WW2.  Similarly those who for various reasons reject a homosexual ideology are  lumped together as ‘homophobes’.   Cultural Marxism is now a world-wide phenomena in the Western world where the watchword is ”everything is political…… a total ideological system supplying opinions for every aspect of life”.   This parasitic mind-set feeds on stirring up concepts of permanent victim-hood in which all perceived inequalities in life must be attributed blameworthy by, or to, somebody – described by some as ‘the politics of envy’, warranting it is believed ever more State intervention on one hand or ‘vexatious’ private litigation by the aggrieved on the other.  Thus it is that those who do not accept a homosexual ethos can now be identified as creating “victims” merely by virtue of their dissent, and such victims are seen as being gratuitously “offended” and therefore requiring the protection of the law.


There is a growing body of opinion which identifies cultural Marxism as having  another and more sinister agenda, namely to systematically and deliberately undermine and eventually to destroy, all traditional Christian values and freedoms of expression and association.  The route to these objectives is to so influence and then move public opinion to see normal Christian values as being regressive, backward, and the enemy of  modernity and progress. The attacks are anti-family through homosexual  indoctrination of the young in schools and education, anti independence of thought, and even anti academic freedom.  Finally, this ideology seeks to corrupt and distort Western culture and the remnants of its Judeo/Christian elements at every possible level, particularly through a largely sympathetic media in popular TV programmes and print media.  


The unintended discriminatory elements of the Equality Bill against Christian employers is to be deplored and resisted as it represents a challenge to the independent nature and government of the church.  It raises the question as to whether the State has the right or authority to legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of Christ, whether established or not, where the employment of church officers or youth workers or others are concerned?   The question itself raises the ghost of past conflicts throughout church history in which arbitrary government laws have sought to regulate the life of the church.  The church v State issue therefore is not new, and the Equality Bill and its predecessors   serves to bring the issue to a head once again. 

What is at stake is much more than a question of employment rights, or even some concept of ‘equality’, but rather one of the historic right of Christians, and indeed other faith groups, to independently determine their own course of action in these matters. The long established and recognised freedom of association principle whereby Churches alone govern their internal affairs would be set aside by the Bill.   That freedom ensured for Christians the right to choose with whom they associate, and conversely, to exclude those who do not share their doctrinal convictions based on the clear teaching of Scripture.   That includes, of necessity, the exclusion of ‘gay’ or lesbian applicants for employment within churches.


 Until relatively recently that right was fully recognised by the State – a right incidentally that was expressed as far back as the Magna Carta of 1215.  This  stated in unequivocal terms:

  “We have in the first place granted for us and our heirs for ever, that the Church of (in) England shall be free”.

It is noteworthy that this  great Charter of civil and religious liberties  pre-dated the existence of Parliament, and is not therefore subject to amendment or repeal by Parliaments to this day, representing as it does a contract between the Sovereign and people.

The same conflict re-emerged repeatedly when Tudor and Stuart kings sought to impose their will upon the church, and this prompted the great poet and pamphleteer John Milton  to write his great treatise –  “ Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes”, with the pointed sub-title,  “Showing that it is not lawful for any power on earth to compel in matters of religion”.

Over 200 years later the principle was once again contested when the Presbyterian Church of Scotland claimed its right to full independence from the English Crown, asserting that the civil power had no authority over the Church.  The dispute led to the passing of the Church of Scotland Act of 1921 by which the State recognised in law the independence of the Presbyterian Church.  One main Article in the Act is the ringing declaration on the headship of Christ over his church in all matters.  It can hardly be bettered:

“The Church as part of the universal church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of church office bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the Church”.

If the Equality Bill returns for the collective church to grapple with then  two courses would provide a sure bulwark against the inroads of further secularism and mis-placed concepts of equality.  The first is the recognition of the principle which the Scottish church expressed so clearly. All it requires is application, faithfully and fearlessly.

The second is not an available option but ought to be if any future government takes seriously a fresh appraisal of the church/State relationship.  It should adopt the First Amendment of the great Constitution of the USA which stated so simply and clearly the fundamental principle in 1776:

 “(Congress) may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government”

Enjoy the internet while you can

Major threat to world internet freedom

The Germans are the “free” world’s leaders in censorship. Some of my German contacts estimate that 200,000 Germans are in jail for saying and writing things that are legally considered offensive. Some of these contacts have been jailed for what they sent or posted on the internet!

By way of background, if they are correct, it was the allies, particularly the Americans, who started this trend with “denazification,” but the ideas behind that actually are said to have come from members of the Frankfurt School, a group of German Jewish intellectuals who sought refuge in the US just before WW II and showed their appreciation by spreading propaganda aimed at destroying our culture. They also were given a lot of elbow room in shaping our “denazification” policies.

Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical, was a member of that school, who took it upon himself to help fixate our children on promiscuity and drugs — an important part of the Marxist agenda to weaken America.

Norbert Schneider, a German leftist heading an important European public office in charge of communications, is a Hitler wannabe who wants to require licenses for all internet transmissions of YouTube-like materials. The trouble is, if implemented in his part of the world, this licensing requirement would automatically be implemented here as well. Schneider has too much power, and we either take his away or he takes ours. I think you can understand he needs to go.

No sooner had I receive the article from Prison Planet (excerpted and linked below) than I found, through a search of the German internet, the following:

So, folks, it is happening. It is no longer in the talking stage. Neonazi Germany is taking the lead.

Oh, and just to cheer you up: Late in 2009, the US, which once ran the Internet, turned control over to Europe.

Need I tell you that global governance (European Union, UN, NAFTA, CFR policies, and the notion of nationalism, patriotism and even the idea of nations having boundaries at all as  “threats” to world peace) is a serious threat to freedom?

The truth that world government advocates don’t want you to know is that nationalism is not the threat to world peace today. The real threat is international tyranny, and the global elite are the tyrants who are likely to start the next war.

Don Hank

There is just so much happening it is explosive. Before you read the Prison Planet article, check this one out, which came in a few minutes ago:

World Economic Forum calls for licensing internet users

Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan

by DefendUSx February 03, 2010 13:34

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Time Magazine has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people with government permission would be allowed to express free speech.

As we reported earlier this week, during a recent conference at the Davos Economic Forum, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

His proposal was almost instantly advocated by Time Magazine, who published an article by Barbara Kiviat – one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab. It’s sadistically ironic that Kiviat’s columns run under the moniker “The Curious Capitalist,” since the ideas expressed in her piece go further than even the free-speech hating Communist Chinese have dared venture in terms of Internet censorship.

“Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality,” writes Kiviat. “Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?”

Kiviat ludicrously compares the necessity to show identification when entering a bank vault to the apparent need for authorities to know who you are when you set up a website to take credit card payments.

Read more.

Corporate America sells YOU for profit

Cute gecko becomes obnoxious chameleon

By Don Hank

WorldNetDaily recently reported that Glenn Beck, one of the boldest and most brilliant talk show hosts on Fox News, has been targeted by a smear campaign headed by an avowed communist now employed by the White House. The goal was to bully Glenn’s advertisers into pulling their sponsorship of his show.

It worked. Advertisers like

— CVS-Caremark

— Geico

— Sargento

–Radio Shack

— State Farm

and a host of others decided to stop sponsoring the show. One of the reasons given was that Glenn had supposedly suggested poisoning Nancy Pelosi. It was based on a perfectly harmless, hilarious spoof, and was a ridiculous claim, especially in view of the constant inflammatory remarks against conservatives made by leftwing TV hosts also sponsored by some of these companies.

A web site ( was set up to defend Glenn by contacting these companies and telling them that Glenn’s viewers will be boycotting their products if they continue to withdraw sponsorship.

Using a link from that site, I wrote as follows to several of these companies:

I understand that avowed communist bully van Jones made you a deal you couldn’t turn down and you caved by pulling your sponsorship of the Glenn Beck show. So much for standing up for freedom.
Do we just give up now and hand everything over to the communists and go quietly to the gulag?
I for one have a long memory and will not be patronizing your company. I doubt I’ll be alone.

Geico responded, saying, among other things:

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.
As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.

I fired back:

If there were a controversy over whether private insurance should be nationalized and all insurance company CEOs fired and jailed, would you take part in that controversy?

But let’s cut to the chase: By pulling your sponsorship of Glenn Beck, a patriot who opposes a communist takeover of the US, in obedience to an avowed communist bully who wants to silence Beck and the rest of us dissenters, you HAVE taken part in the controversy. Because prior to the demand on the part of the communist bully Van Jones, you didn’t see anything wrong with sponsoring the Glenn Beck show so you didn’t think that defending freedom in the USA, the last bastion of freedom, was controversial.

To sum up your viewpoint, you think a patriot like Beck is inflammatory, but as for communists like Van Jones, you will obey them, and will take your business elsewhere because he said he is offended. He intimidated you too, didn’t he?

The system you just caved in to claimed close to 100 MILLION lives in Cuba, Red China, Russia, Cambodia and Vietnam, but not before enough “nice” people there decided to play along with the deadly regimes for personal gain. Without these people — whom Lenin called “useful idiots,” the tyrants could not have succeeded.

If you had opened a history book, you would realize that it is not by giving in, lying down and playing dead that this high-stakes game of freedom vs slavery is won. It is lost that way.

Very soon, if Obama has his way, there will be no more private insurance. Maybe you think Geico execs can then just go to work for the government?

Think again. You were the ones who sponsored Beck. They will never forget.

Fighting wasn’t just an option for you. It was the ONLY option.

World communism — the hardcore variety — is a step closer today.

Don Hank

Suggestion: Maybe you need to switch from the gecko to the chameleon, because you have changed your colors and turned your coat.

Dear Reader: If you don’t mind taking part in a controversy, write a brief email to the companies that pulled their ads from Glenn Beck.  Let them know that treachery has a price. They can side with the enemy all they want, but no one can force we the people – yet – to buy their products.

Send your red hot email to:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

And keep checking the site for further updates.

Further commentary on Glenn Beck vs sponsors:

Geico complains about the “inflammatory nature of the comments on a program” overshadowing “our message and causing GEICO to be drawn into a national debate.”

Interesting, because Geico sponsors several far-left talk shows, including that of Rachel Maddow, who drag us all into sordid one-sided debates. Just for starters, Maddow singled out and criticized black people in particular who resisted the obligation to stay on the Democrat plantation and voted against same-sex “marriage.”

Rachel Maddow calls white guys racist because they think Obama is a racist. She says when they accuse Obama of being a racist, that is “racial invective.” So, Geico, is there an assumption here that no black person could possibly hate whites? If so, what do you base that assumption on? Is there a study, for ex, showing that black people are incapable of hating white people? What about those blacks who SAY they hate whites? Are they lying? What about Hispanic Aztlan kooks who say they want white Americans out of their country? What about “liberals” – white and black — who hate white people enough to take away their rights to work and go to college based on achievement and make it all about race? How is that possibly not anti-white racism in anyone else’s world but Rachel’s tiny one? And how is it not inflammatory? Geico? Are you out there?

But worse, Rachel actually indirectly threatens Geico’s entire industry, by supporting the now very unpopular and controversial Obamacare plan, which ultimately would inevitably result in an exclusively government run health insurance industry.  How is promoting the abolition of the insurance industry not “overshadowing your message,” Geico?

But let me help you orient your thinking here, Geico:  It is not so much the inflammatory nature of a commentator’s comments, but rather their factual vs non-factual nature that inflames. Rachel is so far removed from the reality of ordinary Americans, the ones who buy your insurance (remember them?), that her show is a constant source of inflammation to us. She may not have the same kind of eccentric humoristic genius that Beck does, but she is abrasive to the tender sentiments of millions of Americans who love our way of life and are sick and tired of people like her trying to malign it and mock our values.

So if Geico is going to pull the plug on the infinitely more sane, talented and rational Beck for telling a joke that is controversial or inflammatory, then they should have pulled Rachel’s plug a long time ago because she is not just picking on a far-left congress person but on every decent American.

Nancy Pelosi, whose Senate demeanor proves she has tyrannical tendencies, is just as abrasive and inflammatory as Rachel, whom Geico sponsors, and annoys decent Americans with common sense much more than Beck, whom Geico maligns, and yet it is precisely because of his poignant words about Nancy that they say caused them to pull out of his show.

This becomes comprehensible only if one considers how scary the White House avowed communist Van Jones is and how terrified Geico must have been when this cowardly bully pulled the race card, the cheapest trick in the book, on Geico and Beck. Geico lacked the spine, the cool and the wits to stand their ground and defend one of the last great Americans standing in a losing battle for our rights. And for that they deserve to be disgraced and face the potential loss of customers.

BTW, I have heard time and time again that the Gecko does not measure up  pricewise to at least one other insurance company, and I  urge anyone now insured by Geico to think again, go back to the drawing board. It strains the credulity to believe that any company that shells out that kind of money to advertisers can possibly offer the best deal in town, no matter what they say.

But here are some real questions behind the obfuscation:

Why was Beck the only commentator who pointed out that there’s a commie in the White House? And how long will America tolerate the untenable situation of an enemy on the public payroll?

And why aren’t these the issues we are debating, instead of whether somebody’s joke went too far for proper etiquette?

Finally, it is conservatives and libertarians who most staunchly defend capitalism. Yet the traitor list above shows that perhaps the majority of big business elites aren’t worth defending because they readily sell out our cause when they think we hurt their bottom line. Let’s be careful in our evaluation of capitalism. I almost never use that word any more, because I have seen that, when it comes to Big Business, business and government are in bed with each other in most cases, and that is not pure capitalism. It has another name: fascism.

Let’s use the term “free market,” and let’s recall that the kind of businesses who pulled their ads from Glenn do not fall into that category.

Tiller Murder Requires Proportionate Response in Perspective

On my blog at, I issued a series of posts trying to establish some sense of proportion and perspective about the Tiller murder, the question has been raised as to why the emphasis.

I had my reasons.

Here are links to those entries:

Tiller’s Death and the Internet and Right Wing Extremists

gun control needed to stem abortionist killings in churches

BREAKING NEWS: Today 150,000,000 pro-lifers woke up and DID NOT kill an abortionist.

And this present essay that you are reading was posted already at:

Why Proportion and Perspective is Needed Regarding the Tiller Murder

The reasons for this emphasis go beyond the recent murder of Tiller, however.  We can go back to a post that I made not too long ago that suggested that a ‘right-wing extremist’ attack was not merely inevitable, but something that the current administration actually wants to happen.

Here is a little quote:

Here is what I think. I think that the recently admitted NSA over-collection of American domestic communications revealed that people- even decent people- are really, really, really, really, really, POed about the way things are and the way they are going. I think that material helped drive the DHS report, but I think the DHS was just looking for an excuse.

This report is likely to produce the very thing it is warning about. With this report, every conservative American became subject to the Thought Police and a target of scrutiny by the Federal government. I believe it will put some people over the edge. I believe the intent was to put them over the edge. Continue reading

European Left martyrs Wilders, gives him big poll boost

Euro-Left creates martyr, boosts Wilders in polls

By Donald Hank

De Volkskrant was, to my knowledge, the first news outlet to report that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was planning to make the anti-Koran movie Fitna and Laigle’s Forum was the first news site in the nation to present a translation of that news with comments, later following it up with the news that the movie had come out on YouTube.

At the time, and ever since then, de Volkskrant has allowed all news items on Wilders to be filtered through the highly biased viewpoints of politicians and dignitaries who opposed Wilders and marginalized him as an anti-immigrant rabble rouser.

Today de Volkskrant turned a corner, reporting on a poll by the market research company TNS NIPO showing that Geert Wilders has picked up in polls since his recent arrest for “hate” and his expulsion from Britain for “security” reasons. Not surprisingly, the new supporters of Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) tend to be higher educated than the previous average Wilders supporter.

The article states (my translation):

“In the Second Chamber elections in 2006, 9% of the PVV voters had higher educational degrees. That is now 13%, and among the newcomers, it was in fact 16%… The incomes of the average PVV voters also rose. By living standards, they are increasingly coming to resemble the average Dutch person. ‘The Wilders voter is becoming normalized,’ says Peter Kanne of TNS NIPO.

Volkskrant ascribes the uptick in Wilders’ popularity to his recent martyrdom. A Dutch court recently arraigned Wilders for a “hate” crime based on his showing of Fitna, which puts the Koran in a bad light. Britain also expelled him last week even though he had been invited by British lawmakers to discuss his film.

The Volkskrant also says that a poll by another pollster taken since the TNS NIPO poll show an even further uptick in Wilders’ popularity (my translation):

“The PVV rose in the TNS NIPO poll to 14 votes last week. According to Maurice de Hond, the PVV has grown to 25 votes, making the PVV in fact the no. 2 party in the Netherlands. TNS NIPO polled before Wilders was barred from entry to England, while De Hond polled after that. This explains the difference for the most part. Since 2006, freedom of speech is named as a new reason for voting for Wilders. Kanne: ‘the issue has been successfully co-opted.’ “

What De Volkskrant didn’t tell you is that TNS NIPO is a leftwing group that has tried in the past-like Volkskrant-to marginalize Wilders. Yet now both are forced to back off from that stance, proving once again that the media around the world are motivated mostly by politics, not by truth.

This story is not about Holland or Europe. It is about human beings and what motivates them universally, and hence it has major implications for America, where a black pastor is now facing a jail sentence for carrying a sign with the words “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help” outside an abortion clinic.

Pastor Hoye can take heart from this story about Wilders. As soon as the Left creates martyrs by denying people their God-given freedoms, it automatically pays the price in terms of human responses to their unconscionable actions, greatly advancing the cause of truth and justice.

Further reading

Behind “diversity” the muzzling of Christians

“Diversity” aims to suppress Christianity

I am posting this as a companion piece to the article on Common Purpose and on “diversity” and “leadership” training, both from the UK but both relevant and timely for US readers.

Look how people have been brainwashed by all the PC diversity discussion in the mass media and by diversity training:

‘I have Christian beliefs myself and maybe she meant well. But it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for.’

Notice how no one of another faith complained, yet a “Christian” was dreadfully afraid a Muslim or atheist might be offended on their way to hell or that a dying patient might think they were dying and realize the need for repentance. Imagine living in a world in which praying for a dying patient is banned. We are just a few goose steps away from that absurdity.

Look what else they say:

‘Your NMC (Nursing Midwifery Council) code states that “you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity” and “you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health”.’

Imagine if someone had prohibited the Apostle Paul to heal people on the grounds of ‘diversity.’ What might the sick have thought of that policy? Imagine the scenario: “Oh, thank God that religious fanatic wasn’t allowed to touch me and allow me to walk again!”


Or the following:

As a result, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985 and has worked part-time for the North Somerset Authority since February 2008, was ordered to attend an equality course. Such courses can include learning to make a judgment on whether your words are likely to offend the person they are directed to.

How about bureaucrats taking a course in learning to make a judgment on whether their words are likely to offend an entire nation, their own!

Pray, American, pray hard for an end to this leftward march to nowhere! Nowhere is just around the corner, and its name is Washington.

Donald Hank

PS: I am now in the process of trying to find an email or other address for Caroline Petrie. This brave woman needs encouragement. I would encourage readers to email the reporters at the Mail and ask them if they can convey your sympathy for her and tell her you are praying for her!


Persecuted for praying: Nurse who faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient

By David Wilkes and Neil Sears

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

She now faces disciplinary action, even though the patient involved did not make a formal complaint.

Suspended: Caroline Petrie offered to pray to help a patient recover

The case has outraged the Christian community, which warns its members are becoming ‘the most discriminated against people in society’.

They cited previous instances including that of Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, who in 2006 was banned from wearing a cross around her neck at work.

Last night Mrs Petrie, 45, insisted she was not trying to force her beliefs on others, but was simply offering a little spiritual help.

She said: ‘I have trouble understanding how offering to pray for someone could be upsetting. I feel it’s a nice thing to ask and a way to give hope that circumstances can change.’

She made the prayer offer to May Phippen, 79, in December, at the end of a home visit.

Mrs Phippen, a widow who lives with relatives, mentioned the offer in passing to another nurse the next day.

Caroline denies forcing her faith on anyone and said she was only trying to help by politely offering to pray for a patient

The great-grandmother told the Mail last night: ‘It didn’t worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do. She finished dressing my legs and before she left the last thing she asked was would you like me to say a prayer for you? I said “no thank you” and then she went.

‘It was the first time I’d seen her. She was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn’t want to see her sacked for something like that.

‘I have Christian beliefs myself and maybe she meant well. But it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for.’

Read more here.

European judge redefines, bans free speech

Geert Wilders to be Prosecuted for “Hate Speech”

by Baron Bodissey

If any one person personifies the resistance against the Islamization of Europe, that person is Geert Wilders. His message is simple, honest, and straightforward: the people of the Netherlands (and other nations) have a right to protect the traditional character of their native countries and demand a halt to mass immigration.

But the forces of Multiculturalism are arrayed against him. The Powers That Be recognize how dangerous he is, and are determined to stop him.

And at last they have found a means to do so, all the while being covered by a fig leaf of legality. According to the BBC:

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression”.

“Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said.


Read more.

England already has “Change”

England already has “Change”

There has been evidence of anti-white and anti-conservative discrimination during the recent US elections. A black public school teacher harassed a young student for saying she was for McCain. A man was arrested in Philadelphia for wearing a McCain T-shirt at an Obama rally. And Laigle’s Forum has received emails alleging beatings and harassment of pro-McCain citizens.

The picture is troubling.

But if things are bad here, England has had an amplified version of this situation for many years and the extent of police interference with political life there is beyond the imagination for most Americans.

But just wait a few more years. We are getting there fast. Below is a press release we just received from Pete Molloy of the British National Party.

People will soon know what they voted for.

Donald Hank




Thirteen members of the British National Party were released on bail form various police stations in Liverpool at around 01:30 am this morning.  The 13 men were arrested by Merseyside Police in Liverpool city centre under Section 19 Public Order Act for allegedly handing out material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.  This arrest comes just 24 hours after a member of Merseyside Police was suspended from duties for allegedly being a member of the British National Party because his name appeared on the leaked Party’s membership list that went out on the internet last week.

Speaking today, Pete Molloy, 38, Liverpool, who is the British National Party’s candidate for the Belle Vale ward in the city and one of those arrested said, “The arrests made by Merseyside Police were politically motivated by our anti-democratic New Labour Government because they are running scared that ordinary British folk are turning towards the British National Party, which is opposite to what our Government is trying to make the general public believe with their lies.”

The brochure in question is the British National Party’s report entitled “Racism Cuts Both Ways – The Scandal of Our Age” where it confirms that the white indigenous British people also suffer from racism.  This is an issue that this New Labour Government is trying to sweep under the carpet.

Pete Molloy added “There is nothing at all racist in our brochure and all we were doing was letting the good people of Liverpool, irrespective of their racial origin, know that white people also suffer from racism.  If it is accepted for non-white people to produce literature highlighting they are victims of racism then surely it as to be accepted that white people can produce literature.  No-one should suffer from racial violence.

The Government have come to the wrong city and picked on the wrong people if they think we are going to just roll over and walk away.  Churchill sent the Royal Navy to the mouth of the Mersey estuary with their guns trained on the people of Liverpool, Thatcher tried to squash the people of Liverpool and failed.  This New Labour Government is no better and we will not be defeated.”

All 13 members were bailed to return to St. Anne’s police station on February 17th to see if charges will be brought.


Further information can be obtained from

Further reading: