Nazis take over Philadelphia

Michael Marcavage is arguably one of the last true heroes of our time. Unlike most defensors of liberty, Marcavage has put his own personal liberty on the line to defend yours and mine.

The story below gives the lie to the politically correct idea that history shows a progressive move toward increasing freedom – an idea that was first put forth by Marxist Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce, touted by academics as “one of the greatest thinkers of our time.”

For the politically correct, that is for elitist leftist revolutionaries (mostly atheists) and the “useful idiots” who run along with them without having the slightest idea where their revolution is headed, freedom is on the increase. But freedom is only on the increase for these elitists, who now are in the final stages of taking over our planet. It is on the decrease, for example, for conservative Christians (I am not referring to redefined conservatives, of course, who are nothing but traitors and followers of Satan) and for adherents to common sense notions and principles. There are precious few left in our country who will stand up against the despotism described below. What the rest don’t realize is that the pogrom against traditional Christians is only the first step in the war against all common sense, including the notion of traditional family where parents still have rights over their children’s upbringing, where you have the right to buy gas to go to work, or, eventually, the right to a job or the right to life itself.

The loss of religious freedom is the beginning of the loss of all freedoms.

Wait and see.

Or better yet, don’t wait. Fight.

Donald Hank


Appeal filed in Liberty Bell case

Pastor Marcavage “guilty” for witnessing near Liberty Bell

Appealed to US District Court


PHILADELPHIA — An appeal has been filed in the case of United States of America vs. Michael A. Marcavage and has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis.  The appeal follows U.S. Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport’s June 13 ‘guilty’ ruling of Repent America (RA) director Michael Marcavage for continuing to preach on public property to those waiting in line to see the Liberty Bell because he rejected a “verbal permit” and refused to move to a so-called “free speech zone”. 

During Repent America’s annual pro-life evangelism tour on October 6, 2007, RA was reaching out to those visiting the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as park rangers continuously harassed the ministry team for refusing to relocate to a “free speech zone”. While preaching against America’s toleration of abortion and on repentance from sin to those waiting in line at the Liberty Bell Center at Independence National Historical Park, Marcavage was arrested on the public sidewalk just outside the building that houses the bell. Watch the video of the arrest. 

“The only thing that I was guilty of that day was preaching the Gospel and against the shedding of innocent blood,” Marcavage said. “The government not only put me on trial, but also the liberties of the American people,” he continued.  “If they shut down our ability to speak, they shut down the Gospel; they shut down any message.  If the government prevails in this case, America’s experiment in liberty has finally reached its demise,” Marcavage concluded.


Under the direction of Ian Crane, chief ranger of Independence National Historical Park, supervising ranger Alan Saperstein repeatedly approached Marcavage to demand that he and the ministry team move to a “free speech zone” on the other side of the Liberty Bell Center, which was nowhere near those entering or exiting. Adding insult to absurdity, Saperstein stated that in the future that RA would need to obtain a written permit to even speak in the “free speech zone,” but given a “verbal permit” to go there for the day, which Marcavage refused, citing that constitutional protections were sufficient. When it became apparent that Marcavage was not going to yield to the unconstitutional demands, Saperstein arrested Marcavage and ordered the other members of the ministry team off the public sidewalks. Ironically, Marcavage was then physically escorted into the Liberty Bell Center for questioning and charged with violating the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, § 1.6 Permits (g)(2), which states that he violated the terms and conditions of a “verbal permit” – a permit that Marcavage never accepted, nor is such a permit even listed under the regulations. Subsequently, Marcavage was issued a citation nearly six months later by certified mail concerning the same matter for violating the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, § 2.32 (g)(1) + (2), which states that he was “interfering with agency functions” by preaching and ministering to people on the public sidewalk. 

On June 13, 2008, Judge Rapoport found Michael Marcavage “guilty” on both charges under the Code of Federal Regulations. Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Goldberg argued that Marcavage’s defense was “propaganda” and that he was a “clear and present danger” and asked the judge to send a message not only to Marcavage, but to anyone who would dare stand on public property and share their beliefs without government permission.  In response, Judge Rapoport fined Marcavage $445, including costs, and placed him on probation for one year, which restricts his travel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and bars him from entering the park or being on the public sidewalks surrounding the park for any reason without first notifying park authorities.  He also cannot return to engage in free speech activities without first obtaining a permit, and only then in the designated “free speech zone”. Directly following the trial, Marcavage was escorted by U.S. Marshals to be booked for his “crimes”.




U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis has been assigned to hear the appeal, and a conference has been requested by Marcavage’s legal counsel, C. Scott Shields, to discuss a stay of the imposition of the sentence pending the appeal.

“In a land that tolerates the killing of unborn children, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a continual battle for our freedoms. When the church is silent as the most helpless among us have their beating hearts stopped at the hands of abortionists, then we do not deserve liberty,” Marcavage stated. “Although we do not deserve the blessings of liberty that God has bestowed upon our nation, we must be good stewards by working to preserve and utilize them to help bring an end to the abortion holocaust,” Marcavage continued. “In Philadelphia – the birthplace of American freedom – we will, as the Scripture-inscribed Liberty Bell declares, ‘Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof’ (Leviticus 25:10) regardless of the efforts to silence us,” Marcavage concluded.



Take Action: (1) Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to be a voice against this injustice and the ban on freedom of religion and speech on the public sidewalks at Independence National Historical Park. You may do so by clicking here. (2) Forward this news release by clicking here, so that your family and friends can do the same. (3) Click here to make a donation to support the work of this ministry and the appeal in this case. Your support is much needed and appreciated and will help to ensure that our rights to speak the Gospel publicly are upheld.

June 10, 2008 SC primaries show incongruous results

Candid Observations on 6/10/08 South Carolina Primary Elections


Upstate South Carolina rid itself of the Hillary Clinton of pennyante southern politics tonight, as Wendy Nanney withstood a remarkable onslaught of lies and misrepresentations from the Gloria Arias Haskins camp (as reported here) to defeat the open borders, voting privileges-for-illegals incumbent in the state House of Representatives, District 22 race (congrats to Wendy for a fabulous race, and for being a fabulous candidate).  And similarly mendacious Jim Ritchie appears to have gotten his comeuppance, as Shane Martin almost pulled off a majority in a three-horse race, and will be heavily favored in a runoff.  There were several other ingratiating results in this part of the state as well – as pertains to the minor offices.


But the news in the big races was not so good.


Lindsey (“we’re going to tell these bigots [ie proponents of border security] to shut up”) Graham, perhaps the only individual more reviled in South Carolina conservative circles than John McCain, defeated challenger Buddy Witherspoon by a 2 to 1 margin statewide.  This is far more remarkable than the 33% or so McCain got in “winning” the SC presidential primary a few months back.  Even here in the upstate, where I listened to hundreds of talk show callers the last few weeks and didn’t here a single caller express anything less than venom toward the RINO Senator, he somehow managed 48%.


And just as bad, Rep Bob Inglis, whom I encountered awhile back at a downtown Greenville townhall meeting where he told a hostile crowd that if we didn’t positively revel in the lock-up (for 11 and 12 years) of border agents Ramos and Compean (and consequent shutting down of effective border security) for taking their jobs seriously, then we were guilty of being unpatriotic, won by a similar margin over challenger Charles Jeter.  Making matters worse, Inglis is as much a global warming idiot as McCain, Obama, or Al Gore, adamantly opposing drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, or, for that matter, refining oil.


To rub all this in our faces, Inglis beamed in his victory speech that it was his (America-destroying) energy policies that won it for him (Jeter is a strong advocate for massive domestic drilling and refining).  My question: where are all the folks who, like my family, are going deeper and deeper into debt paying $4 and up per gallon for gas that’s under a dollar in the countries where the politicians let companies drill?  Where was the outrage over the draconian restriction on domestic oil production I’m hearing all over the local airwaves and everywhere I go around the area?  And where is all the outrage that showed itself in that 95% anti-Inglis crowd that turned out at that town hall meeting?


For that matter, where are the folks who cause the opinion polls to give congress that 14% approval rating?  Surely, if there is anywhere in the country that such low esteem should translate into defeat in the primaries, it should be here in South Carolina, where Graham and Inglis have been publicly spitting in our faces to the extent they have.


Could it be our old, friends, the Diebolds?


I suspect so, more so than ever.  Perhaps they don’t turn elections on their heads.  Maybe they just skew them mightily.  Perhaps where a Nanney can win, say, 80% of the vote (as the local yard sign ratio would indicate), the conservative can still win, with credit for maybe 62%, after the tallies are “laundered” through the computerized monstrosities.  On the other hand, a Jeter or a Witherspoon cannot hope to win, as their margins are much smaller, within the grey area where victories or near victories become sound defeats.


Just wondering out loud, but I’d like someone to explain to me the irregularities and peculiarities described above under any other scenario.  Either I’m the nutcase Charlotte talk host Keith Larson painted me to be a few months ago in my appearance on his show, or there’s something real here.


The bottom line is, after long and diligent research, I uncovered practically nobody who knew anybody who knew anybody who knew anybody who’d voted for McCain in SC.  Yet he “won.”  And ditto for Lindsey Graham, yet he “won” by a huge margin.  And everything I hear about these mysterious unverifiable voting contraptions tells me they’re eminently tamperable.


And we’re stuck with the “worst Senator” in America (or his inevitably overtly Marxist November Democratic opponent? – I’m voting for independent Mark McBride, for what it’s worth) and a congressman who wants to fiddle while gas prices and the general inflation and economic hardship that are consequences of gas prices cause America to descend into depression and chaos, and claim that his fiddling is precisely what appealed to 2/3 of the upstate electorate.


See our petition for observed, hand counted paper ballots by November on the SaveAmericaSummit website soon.  And make me the butt of your lunatic fringe jokes.  I’m going to do what I can till I breathe my last breath.




1    In the case of yesterday’s Lindsey Graham “victory,” I’m being asked to believe that the vast majority of South Carolina Republicans don’t care one whit about the illegal immigration invasion qua colonization.  (If there’s one person in the Senate on record as siding completely with the hostile takers over of America and scornful of those who oppose them, it’s one Lindsey Graham.)


2    In the case of Bob Inglis, we’re being told that even in the ultra conservative upstate, South Carolina Republican voters not only don’t care at all about the above isue (I was there when Inglis told a packed house of seething citizens that they weren’t patriotic if they didn’t share his delight in the jailing – for long stretches – of border guardians who dare act like border guardians), but also don’t give a hoot about gas prices, and believe that “fighting” a blatant chimera known as “man made global warming” is worth putting at high risk their families’ very survival.


Now you tell me who’s the “nutcase” – someone willing to swallow these evident whoppers whole cloth, or one who questions – in the light of these remarkable inconsistencies and the fact that Diebolds have been found to be easily hacked – the inner workings of totally unverifiable mechanical machinery in the hands of a government that has betrayed us countless other times.


Again, watch for a petition soon @ on returning America to observed hand counted paper ballots.


My cyber John Hancock:


Charles Lewis


Save America Summit

National Outreach Director

Christian Exodus

South Carolina Director

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

South Carolina Coordinator

America‘s Independent Party


Perilous crossing

Perilous crossing

Olavo de Carvalho

 In his book America and the World Revolution (Oxford University Press 1962), a transcript of conferences given at the University of Pennsylvania in the spring of 1961, Arnold Toynbee wrote:

“If we wish to avoid massive suicide, we have to have our world State as quickly as possible, and this probably means we will need to install it in a non-democratic form to begin with.” 

This was not a prophecy, it was a proposal.  Or rather, it was a reaffirmation of a proposal that had already been under development in the upper echelons of the Anglo-American establishment at least since 1928, when Herbert George Wells published the first popular version of the plan, under the highly suggestive title The Open Conspiracy.  Some historians trace the project back to the end of the 19th century and list its presence as one of the causes of World War I, but we need not go back that far.  The best studies on the life and work of Wells (W. Warren Wagar, H. G. Wells and the World State, Yale University press, 1961; Michael Foot, a history of Mr. Wells, Washington, DC, Counterpoint, 1995) leave no doubts as to the role played by the author of The War of the Worlds in the transformation of a general idea into a viable political project.  Like Wells, Toynbee was not only an intellectual but also an activist, an intimate collaborator of the British government and globalist circles. His monumental work, A Study of History (1939-1961), provides a unified vision of world historical development indispensable for preparing the ground for the advent of world government.

The most recent state of implementation of the plan drawn up by these visionaries can be appreciated from the following paragraphs published in the Taipei Times of February 2006, to which no Brazilian political commentator paid much attention, even though their author was no less than Richard Haass, president of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the most powerful think tank in the United States and practically an antechamber of the US presidency:

“In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests.

 Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker…. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”


  • 1. The success of appealing to examples of commerce and “global climate change” shows that the world State plan can, on the one hand, be legitimized as a unified response to problems of an international scale and, on the other hand, in itself supports an alarmist trend regarding nonexistent problems in order to legitimize itself by false and fraudulent means. In 2006 the slogan “global warming” still might have looked like a friendly warning. Two years later, not only do thousands of scientists openly contest this dogma, but even school children are capable of debunking the legend foisted on the world by the billionaire campaign in which ex-vice President Al Gore serves as the poster boy.
  • 2. The procedures used to impose global list reforms bypass normal democratic channels via decisions made in secret sci-tech and administrative commissions whose activity can hardly be understood by the public (source: here). The speed of the changes makes it impossible for the ordinary citizen to make sense of the events. “Public opinion,” which, generally speaking, is now little more than a set of vague impressions with little connection to reality, then becomes a mere tool for instituting changes that it will never be able to understand or influence. Toynbee’s program emerges, quite plainly implemented: the world State does not suppress democracy, it engulfs it. Democracy continues to exist, but as an organ in a larger body that embraces and controls it without its being in the least aware of this.
  • 3. If other facts that I have cited in my articles have not abundantly proven it, the case of the Kyoto accord will suffice to show an obvious fact that many Brazilian nationalists refuse to understand, namely, that the control centers of globalist power are not found in the American government, nor do the interests of the global State identify in the least with those of good old “Yankee imperialism.” From California to New England, from Florida to Oregon, no one is unaware that submitting to the extension of the Kyoto accord implies destruction of the American economic base, reducing the United States to the status of a second-class power. Nor is it lost on the general public that other globalist projects proposed by the CFR, such as the Treaty of the Law of the Sea, or the dissolution of the borders with Mexico or Canada, would complete this destruction and close the chapter of the American nation in history. Curiously, the most lucid left-wing intellectual in the world, Antonio Negri, has explained and repeated a thousand times that the “Empire” and “United States” are not one and the same thing, that the global empire that is taking shape is supranational not only in its objectives but also in its only internal constitution (not that Negri was the first to discover anything. With minor differences, the essence of his concept of the Empire, published in 2000 by the Harvard University Press under the title Empire, was already all in my book O Jardim das Aflições (The Garden of Afflictions), of 1996). But the fact that not even the word of a renowned leftist suffices to unravel the confusion of globalism and Americanism shows in itself that much of Brazilian nationalism is only a form of morbid atavism rather than intelligent patriotism. The everyday discourse of politics reflects this. Indeed, while the only empire that exists in the world is the one referred to by Negri, in Brazil, the term “empire” is used as a synonym with “United States,” taking its cue from Fidel Castro’s communist rhetoric (“Nuestro espiritu de sarificio y el chantaje del Imperio,” of April 25 at this site). Thus, the great true Empire, with the Latin American left as one of its chief instruments, is spared public hostility, which is turned specifically against the one nation that, ironically – but not coincidentally – is precisely the one offering the greatest obstacles to Imperial designs.
  • 4. The globalist scheme fostered by the CFR is not the only one out there. There is a Sino-Russian globalism consolidated under the Shanghai Pact, which operates essentially by two routes: the financing of terrorism and the control of entire nations by means of the most formidable corruption machine that has ever existed in the world. And then there is an Islamic globalism, which expands by immigration, which is used as a weapon of cultural warfare, in a highly efficient strategy of occupation from within. The relationships between these three schemes of control are extremely intricate and subtle. The Shanghai Pact, for example, is ostensibly a reaction of the left to “imperialist globalism,” but in reality, does not oppose it in any way, opposing only the United States, and thereby helping globalism undermine American resistance (the faulty Brazilian language pattern mentioned above is a local example of this phenomenon). The Islamic and Sino-Russian schemes can be seen, to some extent, as competing with each other, but here as well, a web of caveats and ambiguities renders any schematic simplification prohibitive.
  • 5. No country can “confront” oppressive globalism, but each one has the obligation to integrate itself into it as beneficially as possible for its own people, without in any way compromising its vital interests. However, this calls for a highly trained intellectual elite capable of navigating the twists and turns of the most advanced and complex historic change of all time. In Brazil, this elite does not exist at all, and the assumption that our institutions of “higher” learning can provide it is so ridiculous it does not merit discussion. The courses that have not been reduced to the level of training centers for militants are dominated by the most rudimentary of economic pragmatism, or by academic formalism that can only reason in terms of institutions and doctrines without ever getting down to basic issues. As far as I know, the only Brazilian concerned about training this elite is yours truly, but as you know, I can only work on a very small scale in proportion to my resources, or rather, to the lack thereof. Brazil seems doomed to go through this perilous time without understanding where it is headed or who is leading it.


Translated from the Portuguese by Donald Hank