Doing evil before someone else beats you to it

April 9th, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Global governance, Government, Immigration, International, Sovereignty 4 Comments »


by Don Hank

Having a blog often provides information and views from readers that can lead to new hypotheses through inductive reasoning.

You may remember the Muslim who contacted me the other day and, alluding to the much publicized Koran burning at a Florida church, practically demanded that I support the creation of a US law prohibiting offending the Prophet Mohammed. I went toe to toe with Mahmoud and eventually backed him down, but the entire exchange led me to predict that at some point there would be a major push in our government to prohibit speech “offensive to Muslims.” Here was my evidence:

1—I knew that Europe had already made and was enforcing such dhimmi laws and a lot of ordinary people were being hurt by them. Some were being jailed, others were paying draconian fines and in at least one case, a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast in Britain almost lost their business thanks to the intervention of the thought police in a very personal matter involving politically incorrect witnessing for Jesus.

2—I sensed that Mahmoud was not acting alone. He was a fairly well educated Muslim, and was no doubt a leader in spearheading pro-Muslim change in the world. He didn’t just debate me on line for the sport of it. His responses were too detailed and elaborate for that.

There was definitely something – and someone, most likely a large group or groups — behind the idea, even if they didn’t necessarily put him up to writing me. Sure enough, the ink was scarcely dry on my article when the internet started buzzing with the news that GOP Senator Lindsay Graham and his Democrat colleagues were considering proposing a new bill that would ban offenses to the Prophet.

Another example of a trend in American opinion that I suspect is in the offing but that I had not heard of before is reflected in an email I received today. I expect it too to go ballistic, not on the grassroots level but thanks to the services of church leaders and other influential members of the Ruling Class.

The email friend in question hypothesized that GW Bush knew a supranational world government was inevitable and knew he could not head it off altogether, so he decided to join the Security and Prosperity Partnership and other supranational schemes so that we could have a choice spot at the table. This friend referred me to the writings of a Malachi Martin, who had written a book showing that the Catholic church is interested in joining the push for a one-world government, for at least 2 reasons:

1—A One-World Government is inevitable anyway, and

2—If the church gets its foot in the door early Christians (read Catholics) can get a choice seat at the negotiating table and look out for their interests.

Aside from the fact that this leaves out all Christians mindful of the biblical ban on being unequally yoked, this is eerily reminiscent of the early arguments in favor of granting communist China most-favored nation status. The buzz was that China would inevitably become a world economic power and we needed to get in on the deal early to profit from this “vast new market” that would soon open up. Implicit in this propaganda point was that here was a seller’s market for the US and we would sell high technology to the Chinese while buying some of their goods and maintaining a healthy balance of trade.

We all know how that turned out, now that China owns a hefty share of US debt and a military arsenal nearly equivalent to ours, and has become a vast new sucking sound in the US economy and trade balance.

But back to my friend’s email. If what he said was true – that is, if Bush believed that the One-World Government was inevitable but in his heart rejected the idea — why didn’t he go before the American people and tell them why he was for this idea that would cost them sovereignty but would also pay big dividends in the end? If he really thought it was a great idea because it would give America a choice spot at the bargaining table, and further, that the scheme would inevitably materialize no matter what anyone did, then why didn’t he convince us of that instead of stealthily planning a meeting in Canada behind closed doors and with some of the tightest security ever?

Or better yet, since he supposedly was not in favor of the scheme, when approached by his homologues in Canada and Mexico, respectively, he could have easily said in the media, eg, on TV or in the press:

“My fellow Americans,

The presidents of Canada and Mexico have invited me to sit down and discuss a plan for rapprochement with their governments in a way that would transfer some of our sovereignty to them — and vice-versa — and give them the opportunity to help in making decisions that traditionally have been made by your national government. It would be modeled along the lines of the EU.”

Since this is a matter of national importance and involves forfeiting some US power and influence, I wanted to bring it before the American people and let you vote on it in a referendum. Please let me know whether you are willing to let Mexico and Canada participate in our national government for the common good of all three of our nations.

Before you tell us your opinion on this, I want a vigorous debate in the media, for example, on radio and TV, so that no one has the idea we are trying to do this behind your backs.

Thank you and God bless America.”

Bush then could have arranged for a referendum or persuaded one of the polling companies to take a poll of Americans and see if they are willing to give up some of their sovereignty in the interest of “security and prosperity” on the strength of only a vague promise, without much explanation of the mechanism by which such a scheme could make any of us more secure and prosperous (particularly since illegal aliens from Mexico – those not occupying our federal prisons or terrorizing the ghettos — were even then taking our jobs and sending vast amounts of cash to Mexico).  As I pointed out above, the US government had made a similar assessment of a sovereignty-endangering free trade arrangement with China saying it would “open up a vast new market for US goods and services.” The public already knew how that had panned out and could have acted accordingly. I believe Bush knew the answer would have been a resounding “no.” Since, as my friend postulated, Bush did not really favor the scheme but considered it inevitable, he could have thus gotten off the hook by throwing the decision to the public and saved American sovereignty for a few more years. That would have satisfied the presidents of Canada and Mexico, who would have seen that his hands were tied.

But no, he didn’t do that, did he? He went along with the stealth approach that they all desired, because all three knew the public would never have given up their sovereignty if allowed to opt out of the ill-conceived scheme.

But Bush not only didn’t give the US public the opportunity to opt out of this momentous plan to change the US government forever and hand off significant amounts of decision making power to other countries. In fact, the truth is, Bush had already sold off swaths of our — your — sovereignty to Mexican President Fox, who demanded more rewards for the undocumented who stay indefinitely in our country after entering illegally.

Why didn’t Bush see fit to involve you in these decisions on amnesty and supranational government, touching on the most sensitive and important issues confronting the US public?

That would be a tough question if you assumed that Bush was not deliberately allowing your country’s sovereignty to be eroded, forcing you to pay for benefits lavished on invaders, and plotting to establish a new international union so as to do an even more profound end run around your will.

But if you accept the hypothesis that he was pulling the wool over your eyes for years because he was a true believer in the New World Order that his father had touted, then it all becomes crystal clear. This is the explanation that, in my estimation, best fits in with probability theory, if you subscribe to such quaint notions.

It would explain his fawning before a country that sends millions in contraband drugs and humans to the US every year and contributes more than 50% to our federal prison populations, and why the US has actually built an immigration facility on the grounds of a federal prison housing illegal aliens.

But this is not about Bush. It is about the idea of caving in to potentially harmful ideas alien to the American heart under absurd pretexts.

Even so, I am sorry if I have spoiled the day for anyone who once thought GW Bush was a real patriot who sold out America only because he knew if he didn’t some other great patriot would beat him to it.

Not much of an excuse, is it?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

School does propaganda exercise for delinquent DHS (updated. We did it! But…)

March 25th, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Immigration 12 Comments »

School does propaganda exercise for Homeland Security

by Don Hank

I recently received an urgent report, which says, in part:

“This Saturday, Pottawatamie County and Homeland Security are conducting an exercise with the Treynor, IA (Iowa) Community Schools and will simulate a school shooting. The premise of the mock shooting has been changed to suggest that a student, whose parents oppose illegal immigration comes to school with a gun and shoots a Latino Student.
This was sent to Joan and Michael Becker, whose child was sent home with a permission slip to participate.
From Pottawattamie County Emergency Management Agency Homeland Security Exercise & Evaluation Program (HSEEP)  CLICK FOR PDF HERE” [Note: DHS may remove this site under pressure. If you want a copy, please email me. I have saved it in case. Don Hank]


There has NEVER been an incident such as the one they are manufacturing here in the State of Iowa or any other for that matter. This is highly politically motivated, racially inflammatory, and completely egregious.
What message does this send to those students and families in that school district? It very powerfully suggests that any student with parents that have a certain viewpoint are racist and dangerous. It is completely politically motivated, unbelievable egregious and has no place in any school. 

Please call as many reporters, radio, TV and newspaper personalities and web sites as you can. Please forward this to your mailing lists as well! Here are some of the Contacts;
Superintendent Office
Treynor Community School District
Superintendent- Kevin Elwood
102 E Main St, Box 369
Treynor, IA 51575
(712) 487-3414 Voice
(712) 487-3332 Fax
High School Office
Treynor High School
Pricnipal-Jenny Berens
102 E Main St, Box 369
Treynor, IA 51575
(712) 487-3804 Voice
(712) 487-3332 Fax
Exercise Director
Doug Reed
Emergency Management Specialist
Pottawattamie County Emergency Management Agency
227 South 6th Street, Suite 23B
Council Bluffs, Iowa 51501
712.328.5776 (office)
402.943.9106 (cell)


I wrote to Supervisor Kevin Elwood at:


My motive was to verify that the email was truthful (it was) and that the school was indeed participating, and also to rebuke the school for its participation in this bold-faced propaganda exercise.

Kevin sent a brief polite email stating that the school was involved only in the drill, not the message stating that the fictitious mock attackers are supposedly motivated by sentiment against illegal aliens.

This is not true, because the Homeland Security message reflected in the pdf file regarding the simulated attack by fictitious violent radicals (a concept invented by Homeland Security) opposed to illegal immigration was sent by the school to parents, who then sent out an email alert.

Content of my second email (response) to Supervisor Kevin Elwood:

Thank you for sending your standard response to my concerns regarding the exercise scheduled to take place at your school.

Actually, your school sent to parents a permission slip for a mock attack exercise supposedly involving violent radicals motivated by opposition to illegal immigration, so your denial that you are involved in disseminating the preliminary message about a fictitious family using violence to oppose illegal immigration is disingenuous.

The problem is: many of us saw a pdf file (CLICK FOR PDF HERE) from Homeland Security that explained the background for this exercise, and we are certain that you too saw this and should have objected to it, for the following obvious reason.

The Homeland Security message to parents ignores

1-    that the term illegal means illegal for millions of people, not because they are racists. Many Hispanics, fearing for their lives and safety, pray every night that Homeland Security will halt the flow of drugs, crime, and gangs into our country so their kids can be safe. Many others realize that a lot of non-Mexicans flow into our country every year and there are terrorists in that group. Instead of sincerely addressing these concerns, Homeland Security obfuscates with propaganda efforts of the kind you participate in in an effort to throw the blame for their failure back on Americans.

2-    that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in America are from Islamists motivated by a combination of hate and religious fervor. To stage a mock attack on the premise that terror can be expected from another group is deceitful. To suggest that the danger comes from those opposed to Homeland Security because it refuses to address and counter this typical kind of terror is obviously a means of providing cover for a do-nothing agency that endangers Americans with its irresponsibility.

There is a clear suggestion in the letter introducing the exercise that people who dare to oppose a government policy are violent and that good people are supposed to just sit back and let people violate our immigration laws, pretending that illegal does not mean illegal. If Homeland Security can make a solid case for its denial that illegal is illegal, and can justify its refusal to do its job, then it should do so by publishing its reasons for this, backed up by scientific facts and conclusions directed at the American people, rather than staging an exercise absurdly portraying people who object to illegal immigration (and hence to the reckless inaction of Homeland Security) as violent fanatics and racists.

Unfortunately, Homeland Security has been highly politicized in recent years and is tending to polarize Americans, making us suspicious and fearful of those who, like myself, believe in the notion that illegal means illegal, a disarmingly basic notion that Homeland Security, derspite its smoke and mirrors, has never succeeded in overcoming intellectually or rationally – while continuing to irrationally act as if the opposite notion (i.e. that illegal does not mean illegal) were a given. Instead, the agency seems to want to emotionalize the issue without ever explaining why all Americans should accept what can only be described as an invasion. The drill at your school and the accompanying literature to the parents is more of a propaganda move than an exercise to keep people safe. And your school is shamefully lending itself to this outrageous, grossly unfair propaganda action.

If Homeland Security wanted to keep people safe, it would do exactly what Mexico, for example, does: Penalize those who enter their territory illegally and stop the flow or slow it to a trickle. Instead, it propagandizes to support its own unacceptable delinquency and make Americans fearful to oppose it, lest they be seen as potentially violent radicals and racists. Actually, Homeland Security’s policy in defense of open borders and tacit acceptance of illegal immigration (returning only the most violent of criminals among the illegal aliens) is radical and dangerous, not the position of millions of Americans who want the agency to do its job.

Your exercise is part of this propaganda activity and your response does not explain why you are willing to lend your school to this propaganda effort that portrays those opposed to foreign invasion as potentially violent rather than explaining to us why you all feel that way about ordinary Americans who pay your salary.

So please try again. Tell us why you want to be part of this vicious and unfair propaganda effort to belittle millions of non-violent Americans who just want to be safe behind protected borders.


I would encourage as many of you as possible to write a brief email, detailing your objections to their planned propaganda effort, to Superintendant Kevin Elwood at


Let Mr. Elwood know that by sending out the message to parents detailing the nature of the fictitious attackers as people opposed to illegal immigration, they are participating in a shameless propaganda effort to obfuscate the failure of Homeland Security to do its job and stop or significantly slow illegal immigration, and throw the blame for terror on Americans who want a safe border and an end to unlimited and illegal immigration and all the attendant ills of drugs, violent crime, gangs, and terrorism.

Thank you!

IT WORKED! THERE WILL BE NO DRILL NOW! But we’re being blamed for “threats.” There is no end to the propaganda. Now we need to contact Elwood and ask him if criticizing the government is always to be taken as a threat, just as it was in the Soviet Union and China:


Mainstream news coverage:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

My government is killing me

March 2nd, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Global governance, Government, Immigration 4 Comments »

Oh my aching government!

by Don Hank

I am tired of reading about innocent people being killed as a result of federal actions and policies.

I first noticed this when the Christians in Iraq started getting killed (over 50 were killed there when a church was destroyed just this week). There are now almost NO Assyrian Christians in Iraq. They had survived for over a millennium and were thriving under, of all people, Saddam Hussein. But they succumbed to the actions of a RINO president. (No, I am not a Saddam fan, but if you don’t know what the consequences will be, think twice about invading a country).

Now Obama, in his role as “President of the world,” has demanded that Mubarak step down, and lo and behold, the same thing happens in Egypt: The Coptic Christians are being slaughtered.

To some, it may seem far-fetched to observe this, but in this country, with the same stupid policies of aiding the enemy, we find 2 federal agents killed with guns apparently supplied by the good old US government, one just this week.

Like I said, I’m tired of watching good people die as part of a government experiment conducted by idiots with a rocket scientist mentality.

I don’t think any of the actions that caused these unintended consequences were constitutional.

Can we have that document back?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Islamization and Mexicanization — two designs, same architects

October 29th, 2010 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in dhimmitude, Immigration 4 Comments »

By Don Hank

The slow but sure Islamization of Europe, illustrated in the below-linked video, is headed this way. Dearborn Michigan is a showcase example, where Christians are forbidden to hand out tracts in many places where Muslisms would be offended.

Europe and the US are in the same basic set of hands: PLCSDs (progressives/ liberals/ communists/ socialists/ Democrats) who rule the West by controlling the media, education, film and the arts, the universities, much of the political world, etc.

The Fabian socialists started in London in the early 1880s. Karl Marx’s sister was one of them. Their avowed goal: To spread socialism and eliminate Christianity from Western culture.

How are they doing so far?

Their influence spread and spun off other like-minded groups (the Frankfurt School, the UN, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Democrat and Socialist Parties in the US, socialist parties in Europe, Common Purpose in the UK), which spread the virus.

Their goal in Europe is being achieved in part by importing large numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to dilute the already waning Christian influence there. The result is a growing state of anarchy in the street and an untenable, often desperate social situation, for example, in many European schools, where European students are bullied mercilessly by Muslim kids.

On this side of the Atlantic, their goal is being promoted by supranational government schemes like NAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and the Trans-Texas Corridor), all of which aim to obliterate borders toward the short-term goal of achieving an EU-style borderless America with a single central government that dictates to what is left of national governments (to be reduced to puppets that only harmonize central legislation). The longer-term goal is a one-world government such that no nation or region has any significant power over its own destiny.

The huge influx of illegal aliens you see all around you is part of that plan. They are portrayed as victims, ie, the “poor,” in the media but a growing percentage have ties to the cartels that have made life unlivable and short in Mexico. They are creating crime-filled ghettos in our cities in their quest for a “better way of life.”

I guarantee that the useful idiots who lend themselves to the implementation of this scheme to help illegal aliens gain increasing privileges in our nation, including — now — the right to vote in our elections, will some day rue the day they were duped into becoming pawns in this evil game.

Here is a foretaste:

Post left at another LF column by a lady living in Germany:

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for speaking the truth again, Don.

Perhaps I should add that I live in Germany, and we see the encroaching creep of Islamism here without a doubt.

I think of a church in Reutlingen in the south of Germany, who have spoken up against the way the Lutheran Church in the town has (I use the singular intentionally) been in recent, close fellowship with the Turkish nationalistic, fascist youth organisation, the ‘Grey Wolves’, who, any search in Google will show, are murderers and assassins, and with whom even the CIA are linked. The Lutherans had allowed them on to the church board, allowed them access to their premises, church hall, etc, all ‘in the name of dialogue’ with Muslims, in order to help them to integrate into German society.

It beats me that the ‘Pfarrer’ didn’t have the wisdom to find out for himself what sort of people these are, but perhaps he in his mistaken, humanistic, naive way, thought that he could turn them from their Jihadist thinking. If so, then he was wrong. A video was made of a Grey Wolves meeting in the Lutheran church hall, presumably by one of the partaking group, with the Cross and other Christian symbols covered up, showing the Grey Wolves members saluting, (very similar to the Hitler salute, forbidden in Germany). The video was put on You Tube and caused a furore when the local press got hold of it.

The Lutheran church then accused the free church of being religious intolerant fundamentalists, and even said that they had filmed the meeting, which any common logic would make clear, was a ridiculous accusation. They then ostracised, cold-shouldered and slandered the free church. The sad thing is that other churches in town did the same, pandering to the fear of the Grey Wolves, who hold even other Muslims in terror, unwilling to take a stand for the truth. They said that the free church was destroying the town’s ‘Christian unity’. If that’s Christian unity then I’m the Pope.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Ninth Circuit poisoning the well

October 27th, 2010 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in elections, Immigration, Judiciary 10 Comments »

 Ninth Circuit “legalizes” voter fraud, undermines all authority

by Don Hank

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof.  The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

So if you want to poison the well, be careful where you drink.


Further reading:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button