Laigle’s Forum

If you are censored and told what you may or may not say, it probably will not be the result of government action. The government still has First Amendment considerations to contend with, making censorship politically difficult.

If the government decides to censor you, it will leave the dirty work of doing so to an NGE.

What is an NGE, you ask?

NGE stands for Non-Governmental Enforcer. NGEs are generally large corporations, which operate in league with corrupt government and receive generous public funding in return, including bailouts when such are needed. I introduced this term recently when my brother in Christ Julio Severo had his PayPal account closed on the grounds that his was a “hate group.” Brother Julio believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says as much in several key verses.

Thus, it is the Bible that ultimately is being censored, and no matter how you feel about this issue, the fact is, this nation, founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom, is inexorably accepting the premise that sexual freedom must take precedence over freedom of creed — freedom of religion.

That is not the only issue into which have stepped NGEs to muzzle dissenters.

The BNP (British National Party) has had its bank account closed by Barclays because they supposedly are anti-Muslim and some low-ranking members have allegedly uttered violent words. (Note that when the Left — for example, the Occupy Wall Street movement — utter violent words, they are ignored or encouraged).

Thus far, the West has succeeded in circumventing the quaint notion of free speech in the areas of homosexuality and Islam.

But if you think it will stop there, you are hopelessly naïve.

Christianity is based on bedrock principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, who said, for example: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but through me.

Clearly the doctrine represented by this verse excludes all other religions and is offensive to some. That is not at odds with the teachings of Christ, who came “to bring a sword” (that is, not to kill but to divide believers from non-believers).

The idea that all speech must be inoffensive will ultimately lead to the banning of this verse and the censoring of those who dare to utter it in public. Parents may also be banned from teaching it to their children.

It matters not that this is perhaps the key to the Christian faith. The elites see Christianity as an obstacle to their plans.

The West has crossed a line as a result of negligence, and now, unless the people who ignored the issue start to wake up to what is happening, we can only await the end of faith — and hence an end to any protest against government abuse and corruption. The government can now starve you with impunity and without resistance.

The line we crossed could be called the Niemöller line of non-protest. People did not protest the outrage that was perpetrated against Julio Severo because they weren’t Christians and they think — erroneously — that he has somehow victimized homosexuals. They did not protest the outrage against the BNP because they were not members of the BNP and they believed the lie that Muslims are inherently victims of Christians.

Westerners are like a herd of wild animals attacked by a lion. A herd of kudo antelopes could hold off a lion attack. But they are content just to escape individually, while their fellows are killed.

Let’s stop being herded by the elites. It’s undignified and potentially deadly to behave this way. We can stop them if we stick together and all say no in unison, before protesting is forever banned.

We can and must say no, insisting on our God-given right to free expression. Our very survival depends not on the flight instinct but on the fight instinct.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1467204/Barclays-to-close-five-BNP-accounts.html

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

WHY CHRISTIANS MUST OPPOSE THE EQUALITY BILL.

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.

UNINTENDED DISCRIMINATION.

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.

CULTURAL MARXISM. 

  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.

ATTACK UPON CHRISTIAN FREEDOMS .

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.  

STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE CHURCH

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.

THE CHURCH SHALL BE FREE !

 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”

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:

http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/broadcasting_regulations_to_govern_online_video/

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

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/agency-calls-global-cyberwarfare-treaty-drivers-license-web-users/

Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan

by DefendUSx February 03, 2010 13:34

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
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.

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 (http://www.defendglenn.com/) 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

http://laiglesforum.com

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:

zeroteam@jbcumberland.com;

info@woundedwarriorproject.org;

service@jos-a-bank.com;

toughbook_sales_support@us.panasonic.com;

info@cinergyhealth.com;

media@medco.com;

corp.communications@mckesson.com;

Sandra.Kelder@wyndhamworldwide.com;

kempt@hq.usps.org;media@aarp.org;

daryl_richard@uhc.com;laura.stein@clorox.com;

d.bernard@wsj.com;

vincent@roche.com;

media.relations@RadioShack.com;

mediarelations@pepboys.com;

btucker@adt.com;

pr@equis.com;

customerservice@gold101.com;

info@60plus.org;

media.help@apple.com;

mjaronski@darden.com;

tyler.mason@phs.com;

customer.service@ups.com;

kdoria@scottrade.com;

info@sepracor.com;

webtest@geicomail.com

And keep checking the DefendGlenn.com 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.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwlrp7AQtyQ&feature=related

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?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-gops-overt-racism

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.

On my blog at sntjohnny.com, 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. Read the rest of this entry »