Is the fake birth certificate REALLY my fault?

It’s all my fault the birth certificate is fake. At least that’s what my critics apparently think.

by Don Hank

Yesterday I told my friends to hold off on sending me emails because I have a big project to deal with. But as usual, something gigantic happened in the news: Obama revealed his “birth certificate,” which was quickly debunked as a fake by computer graphics experts. I sent out alerts to my usual list to a very short piece I wrote showing incontrovertible evidence that the new “birth certificate” touted by Obama on the White House site is fake. The article included a video made and narrated by an expert on computer graphics who showed why it is fake. It was disarmingly easy to understand. Nothing very technical.

Then for those die-hards who don’t believe anything unless it has the Mainstream Media or White House seal of approval on it, I included a simple test that people can use to convince themselves.

I actually did hear from some of the brighter stars on my correspondence list how they too suspected the doc was a fake and they agreed with me.

But I got a surprisingly large number of complaints that this whole thing had gone too far and it was obvious I was to blame for dragging America away from the implementation of Obama’s utopian agenda. In addition, many complained it was simply too technical for them to grasp. They could hear the words but they couldn’t comprehend them.

The message was clear: people were tired of this game and they wanted to talk about more substantive issues.

But wait. Wasn’t that the Democrat argument?

If you had just perpetrated a gigantic hoax on the US public, wouldn’t you want to divert attention away from it by telling them it was not important and that America has better things to do than to worry about whether the president of the United States is actually qualified to hold that office and whether he was perpetrating childish hoaxes by photo-shopping an obviously fake birth certificate?

Let me point out the obvious, again.

Obama’s latest caper is so childish, so sophomoric, so lacking in brains and so obviously a hoax that even a child can see through it, and if that isn’t some of the biggest news of the century, then I can’t imagine what is.

In political terms, this means that if the same people who put so much energy into the “where’s the birth certificate” campaign were to hold out just a little longer, the usurper would be so discredited only a tiny handful would vote for him in 2012. After all, who wants a president who is obviously misleading them, and bankrupting their country to boot?

But America blinked, and that blink was tantamount to Washington giving up at the signing of the peace treaty with England.

Imagine if George Washington had gone to the signing, pen in hand, ready to accept England’s capitulation, and after drinking a glass of champagne with his troops, tossed his official copy of the Treaty of Paris into the waste can and said, “ah, ya know what? It’s time to put this whole thing behind us and start a new chapter. Tell King George he can keep ruling us. I just need to rest.”

“But Sir, many of us sacrificed our lives and fortunes to defeat this tyrant…”

“My good man, we have more important things to do than to insult the King.”

“But we thought you agreed that he was a tyr…”

“Enough! There are much more important things to do than to accuse poor King George of ruling us unfairly. Why, there’s new taxes to be levied and a government to be set up.”

“Taxes to be levied? But by whom, Sir?”

“By the King, who else would be qualified to levy them? Someone must pay for the costs of this dreadful war and raising taxes is the best way.”

“But Sir, with all due respect, we don’t think the King has any authority over Americans any more now that we have won the war.”

“Well, I will soon be the King’s governor and I will decide whether he has authority over us.”

Some ending, huh?

Yet Obama, who has declared war on the American way of life, on our freedoms and our values in so many ways, has just handed us a clear unmitigated victory — by uploaing an obviously fake photo-shopped birth certificate onto the White House site — and we are doing precisely what my fictitious Washington did, ceding victory to the enemy, pretending that he is worthy to lead us. For the first time, in a long and arduous battle, we have just glimpsed victory — an obvious hoax perpetrated by the putative president of the US — and instead of seizing the day and declaring it for what it is, we have absurdly thrown in the towel to the obvious loser!  And the theoretical George Washington in my story is the GOP and the RINO lineup we face in 2012, all of whom have aided and abetted him in this sordid affair.

But you know, winners don’t behave like these fair-weather patriots. My kids tell me that accomplished musicians put in sometimes 10 hours a day practicing.

Can you imagine a talented singing star practicing for years and dreaming of making the big time, and then a week before the big stage appearance in the already sold-out concert guaranteed to make his career, suddenly saying, “ya know, I need a week off. I’m tired of all this practice, practice, practice. The h— with it! Let someone else take my place.”

That is America today.

After all the lies about the birth certificate, the fake document foisted on a gullible public, the insults to our intelligence, instead of blaming the architect of all this misery, gullible ADD suffering Americans turn on the ones who see the emperor is naked. These tag-alongs don’t really care who rules them or whether we have a Republic or not. They just wanted to keep up the appearance of being patriots who care about their country — when it’s convenient.

I know I am addressing a dwindling audience of the faithful here, and you are the precious few who won’t give up because you know what is at stake and how important the truth is — not the contrived, fabricated truth of the media and Ruling Class, but the absolute, objective truth, the truth we get at by using the only known method for accessing truth: the scientific method of inquiry and unbiased examination of the data, which we scrapped a while back in favor of consensus (post-modernism) — the uninformed public now decides, based on what they’ve been told by the Ruling Class. We traded our birthright for a facile truth, which is synonymous with lie, and we’re ok with that.

But be forewarned: if America can’t earn her birthright — her right to freedom — then she most certainly doesn’t deserve it.

As for the rest, I don’t know about you, but I see victory dead ahead, and if you don’t want to pick yourself up and claim it, well, tell ya what: Uncork yourself another brew and sit yourself down to another exciting episode of American Idol (woopie!). You may not have a job tomorrow, but who cares? We working stiffs will carry you.

Meanwhile, my friends and I – diehards who just can’t seem to say goodbye to the American experiment and hello to the USSA — will carry you to the goal post and we will still win this war.

Because real Americans don’t give up.

PS: I have had this theory since first seeing the new botched BC construct. What if a person who has been screwed by Obama offered as a “friend” to make a perfect birth certificate using a BC from Hawaii dating to around that same time. He starts with a doc signed by a doc of that hospital and uses just the signature and a few other little items. But this guy is not a true friend of Obama’s, just a prankster who likes mischief (all leftists do), and he decides to stick it to his “friend” and design it so that the doc downloaded from the internet comes apart in layers. I am sorry, but I have trouble believing this was not on purpose, and I also can’t believe Obama made it look this suspicious just to stick his finger in our eye.

There is something else going on here! Watch for it.

PPSS: One of the commenters said that “the pattern is too seamless.” I finally understand what they meant. If you look at the left hand part of the document that seems to be bent inward, as though cut away but yet somehow maintaining continuity with the text field (as if this were possible! — looks like a trompe l’oeuil painting), you see that the green print pattern does not follow the contour of the bent-away portion. Absurdly, it just goes straight across. Apparently the WH made some sort of lame excuse for all this tampering and the layering, and the apparent use of character recognition software, but that is all the more evidence that it is not a true copy. BTW, an old doc on good paper in a book does not fade appreciably because the pages are not exposed to the air and hence do not oxidize or chemically degrade appreciably. And if the characters were hard to recognize, the character recognition s/w would not recognized them better than the human eye, so there would seem to be no sensible reason for using it.



Is the new “birth certificate” real?

Is Obam’s “birth certificate” real? Well, first, ask yourself why Obama refused to show this when asked at the beginning of his campaign, and then when sued in court on several occasions, held out a full 2 years, spending over a million dollars to do so, and then reluctantly trotted this out only after Donald Trump put him in a strangle hold.

The video:

The easy test you can do: 

  1. Go to:  (in case they have taken it down or changed it, I have a pdf copy of this “birth certificate” which was downloaded from the White House web site. Just email me at and I will send it to you).

2.  Click ‘select’ (the little arrow thingy), put a box around the text in standard Adobe. Right click mouse. Choose “Copy Image”.

3.  Paste into standard Microsoft Word. See what shows up.

Sustainability Agenda 21 doesn’t sustain

Sustainability = wealth redistribution from poor and middle class to rich

by Don Hank

Agenda 21 purports to promote sustainability, but it does just the opposite. In fact, it would seem as if the real motive behind this plan is to redistribute wealth, the way Marxism always has done – by destroying it.

Here is what Item 2.3 of the Agenda says, for example, about trade

2.3. The international economy should provide a supportive international climate for achieving environment and development goals by:

(a) Promoting sustainable development through trade liberalization;

(b) Making trade and environment mutually supportive;

In stark contrast, here is an example of what actually happens when you liberalize trade to meet these guidelines:

When the EU started a free trade deal with Panama essentially in compliance with Agenda 21, the first thing that happened was that fish and vegetables started to be shipped by air to Europe. The overregulation of fishing in Europe and the attendant high cost of seafood on the continent made this highly inefficient shipping method economically feasible. However, air shipping not only costs much more than standard maritime shipping but, more importantly, uses several times more fuel, so according to their own theory, this liberalized trade emits more carbon into the atmosphere.

The second thing that happened was that the fish prices doubled here in Panama (my wife and I now rarely buy fish as a result).

At the time the free trade negotiations were being mulled, the EU tightened regulations on fisheries in Europe, nearly ruining the trade. European Fishermen are now forced to throw back over-quota caught fish dead.

The traditional idea of economizing, saving fuel, and saving resources has thus all been thrown out the window with this “sustainability” policy.

But there is more to item 2.3. It goes on to discuss finances:

(c) Providing adequate financial resources to developing countries and dealing with international debt;

(d) Encouraging macroeconomic policies conducive to environment and development.

Simply put, the implementation of these ideas gave the Western world our financial meltdown because, again, the hidden agenda was wealth distribution. The banks that “failed” were doing what government had, in some cases, demanded — giving loans to the underserved communities (under the CRA). Even without being forced to do this, banks learned from example that doing this would bring the blessings of the government. Sure enough, the bankers got juicy bailouts for being irresponsible!  Oh, and the poor? Many of those who got loans they obviously couldn’t afford lost their homes.

An example of such a financial policy from an environmental standpoint was Obama’s draconian response to the BP oil spill, namely, a ban on offshore exploration. But if this ban had been aimed at saving the environment (in accordance with item (C) above), as it purportedly was, then Obama would not have turned around and lent Brazil billions of dollars to drill in their offshore waters. But he did. So it wasn’t.

In Europe, the wealth redistribution agenda was also evident when the richer countries were forced by the central government bosses to bail out poorer but less responsible countries, such as Greece and Ireland.

How did this help the poor countries?

It didn’t. Their credit ratings plummeted and they are now paying twice as much interest on their debt as the richer countries. And the entitlement addicts on the street rampaged, causing millions of dollars in damages in a country that could scarcely afford this.

Just these simple illustrations show that the whole agenda is about 100% fraud and has hurt the countries it aimed to help, not to mention the rich countries that were forced to supply the “help.”

The agenda has, however, helped one of the richest men in the world, billionaire Spiros Latsis , who grew even richer off of a bailout paid for by European working stiffs. His story was typical as the ultra-rich everywhere grew richer from government largesse.

In the last century, the world was given a lesson thanks to the failures of major communist regimes, and that lesson was: wealth redistribution by government does not work. We had no sooner failed to learn that lesson than we were given a new one: government-imposed “sustainability” is a fraud.

I hope and pray we learn this lesson better than the last, although experience teaches that getting a lesson is not the same as learning a lesson. Not by a long shot.

America is not big enough for Rove and Trump

Is Rove kidding? Who told him he can speak for US?

by Don Hank

The porcine Mr. Rove, whom Trump accuses of saddling us with Obama, obviously thinks he is God, warning that the GOP (and the American public—you don’t’ speak for me, Pal!) will never accept Trump as a presidential candidate.

Trump has had such extremely high poll numbers it is obvious he can win without Rove, and if the GOP dares to ignore Trump and deny him entry into the Kingdom, he may write the GOP’s obituary by founding a winning third party.

Although it is unclear what a Trump Party would look like, I for one would not miss the sleazy, left-leaning GOP for a second.

Rove and his whole den of white-collar thieves are just as responsible as Obama for our job-killing unlimited illegal immigration, robber bailouts, TARP, QE 1 and 2, and the resulting — inevitable — downgrade of US bonds by Standard & Poor, which may be next-to-the last nail in our economic coffin. Once the interest rises beyond a certain percentage on US bonds, only a miracle can keep us from defaulting on our already staggering debt (which we owe mostly to Bush — with Rove whispering in his ear — and Obama and their laissez-faire policy toward grossly irresponsible bankers and the Fed).

And if the welfare checks stop, then expect civil war as Obama — the true cause of the ills — blames the crash all on rich white men.

Trump may very well be right about Rove foisting Obama on America – by giving us nothing but a palette of the most lackluster and wearisome candidates imaginable in 2008.

Having said all that, trading Trump for a GOP candidate would certainly have its own set of woes.

Scandinavia finally learns — the hard way

Scandinavia has finally had enough

by Don Hank

Scandinavia, having been forced — along with other countries with strong economies — by their EU Rulers to pay  bailouts to irresponsible banks and governments, and having witnessed first-hand the damage done by hordes of hostile Muslim immigrants, has been turning steadily rightward, as shown by a landmark election in 2006.

The Swedish welfare state has been collapsing due in large part to the importation of overwhelming numbers of Muslims who indulge in crimes like rape, and theft that native Swedes have long eschewed.

In one interview, Muslim criminals claimed they enjoyed robbing Swedes because they are wimps who never resist and because they don’t like the way Swedes look at them. Like their counterparts throughout Europe, the Swedes are definitely wimps, no doubts about it.

A Swedish sociology prof says the solution is “jobs for everyone.” In other words, keep importing Muslims who hate you, keep them on the social assistance (welfare) rolls, but for goodness sakes, give the poor things your job. That will solve everything by putting you the Swedes on welfare and letting them pay your way for a change.

If someone broke into his home and raped his wife, I wonder if this sweet professor would offer the rapist-thief a job.

In response, political parties labeled as “ultraright” by the ultraleft (the average university “educated” European professional these days) are surging in Scandinavia.

Just this week, the nationalist, anti-EU True Finns party won dramatic electoral gains, showing that an increasing number of Finns have had enough of bailouts and hostile immigrants rammed down their throats by the tyrannical Brussels bureaucrats-in-chief.

Unfortunately, in the US, the people and their politicians are prioritizing anything but illegal immigration and that spells trouble ahead.

According to Judicial Watch, the Obama administration’s answer to illegal immigration and drug trafficking by Mexicans in the US is to make it impossible for the Border Patrol to interfere with their “business”!

It is tragic that so few seem to care.

But like Europe, we may have to learn this lesson the hard way.

This week’s Finnish right turn:

Swedish crisis:

US “solution” to drug smuggling:

Sweden’s right turn:

Does Obama want you dead?

Think long and hard about the answer to that question. There’s evidence that he does.

by Don Hank

An interview with Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weather Underground, reports on a meeting with these his former associates. The group leaders discussed plans to set up re-education camps (concentration camps) in the South once they had taken over the US. When then-member Grathwohl asked what would be done with the approximately 25 million who could not be re-educated, the leaders responded “they would have to be eliminated.”

 “Meaning killed,” clarifies Larry.

Does Obama disagree with any of the dangerous, insane ideas brought to light in the below-linked video? He is close pals with William Ayers of the Weather Underground, who was involved in a bomb plot that killed people. Following his outrageous, politically motivated acquittal, Ayers said he only wished he could have killed more. Does Obama disagree? Really? It’s a vital question and no one is sure of the answer.

Consider this irony: William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn went to Egypt prior to the revolt that toppled Mubarak. They are believed to have had a hand in fomenting the revolution. After all, when 2 known friends of the president of the US say to a group of militants “the President will support you,” that carries a lot of clout. Now, to reiterate: William Ayers was one of the Weather Underground leaders who agreed that 25 million Americans would have to be killed if his group took over the US.

Yet, his close friend and ally Barack Obama said in his propaganda effort to support the Middle Eastern uprisings, that our intervention was humanitarian and that the dictators there (Mubarak, Ghadaffi) are killing citizens.

So, Barack Obama, who supports the homicidally minded Ayers, is trying to make us believe he cares about human life in Africa?

Do you believe him?

Brainwashed Americans simply don’t understand the far left. 

We witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union, which killed around 20 million there . We watched passively as Mao killed an estimated 70 million in China. Facts incredibly well guarded in America

Yet today, only a few decades later, by electing a president whose ideology is very much in line with the Soviets’ and the Chinese communists’, we are flirting with something possibly more deadly still than the ideologies of Stalin and Mao, who killed a total of up to 90 million between them. Let that sink in.

America has suffered a potentially deadly dumbing-down at the hands of the Democrats, the RINOs, the false conservatives, the controlled opposition (including many clergy) and the useful idiots.

The rest? We’re only a handful.

Say, 25 million or so.

Larry Grathwohl’s testimony on the Weather Underground:

Wikileaks: US secretly backed Syrian uprising:

US media cover up Ivory Coast massacre details

US media cover up vital Ivory Coast massacre details: killers were Muslims loyal to UN-backed Quattara, electoral fraud likely.

by Don Hank

The Huffington Post recently ran a report on the slaughter of 1000 civilians near Duékoué in the Ivory Coast. I point this out only as a random example of the way Muslim-on-Christian violence is reported in the mainstream press. Quote:

“Nicholson, the Caritas spokesman, said the killings occurred over three days in a neighborhood controlled by fighters loyal to internationally recognized President Alassane Ouattara, though it was not clear who the perpetrators were.”

First, the gruesome photos and videos from that scene appearing on the internet show dead and wounded women without veils and, for the most part, without headscarves. In other words, not Muslims. Since Quattara’s loyalists are Muslim, while Gbagbo’s loyalists are Christian and other non-Muslims, it is obvious whose side did the killings, and reports in the French press (le Figaro) confirm this. It doesn’t seem to occur to American reporters to consult the French language press, which in fact states that the UN mission in Ivory Coast, Onuci, itself reports:

 “Most of the dead in Duekoue were killed by pro-Quattara fighters.” [my translation]

Note that:

The reporter does not mention that the fighters loyal to the “internationally recognized” president, who received help from the UN, are all Muslims, who, as pointed out at

Frontpagemag, represent almost 100% an immigrant population that only started to enter the country, mostly illegally, since around 1960.

No one mentions that the former president refused to step down because he claimed there was voter fraud, and that instead of investigating, Western leaders immediately recognized the newly “elected” Muslim president Quattara. Another French language report shows photographic evidence of massive electoral fraud, including apparently counterfeit signatures on the election results documents and numbers of votes far exceeding the number of registered voters.

No one mentions that this atrocity occurred under the watch of the UN and is therefore the responsibility of the UN, which did nothing to keep the peace in this area, while engaging the troops loyal to the Christian president.

Note that Jimmy Carter didn’t rush in to count the votes once fraud was declared.

But this kind of non-reporting has been going on for decades and is the norm, not the exception. You may recall when those “young people” rioted in the outskirts of Paris and the media carried the story for weeks as the ghetto burned, and yet most reports did not mention that all of these rioting young people were Muslims.

When Christians get violent, the same press makes no bones about bruiting this fact to the world.

This kind of reporting has blinded the Western grassroots to the clear-cut link between Islam and violence, and the result is, in part, as follows :

Almost all of the Assyrian Christians, who survived 2 millennia in Iraq living side by side with the Muslim population, and even survived Saddam Hussein, who protected them, succumbed to the Bush administration’s war, waged purportedly to avenge ourselves of the actions of terrorists all hailing from Saudi Arabia, not a one from Iraq.  The mainstream media, normally critical of presidents deemed conservative, gave Bush a break by ignoring the banishment of these Christians. Most of the survivors now live in Sweden.

The Coptic Christians, who survived for two millennia in Egypt, living side by side with the Muslim population, and also survived decades of Mubarek’s reign, are now either fleeing or living in terror. The first thing the “democratic” military leaders did after taking over the reins from Mubarek was to enter a peaceful monastery and shoot 5 civilians, including a Coptic priest.

The mainstream media ignored this fact. It came to my attention via an email from a Coptic activist contact. I later confirmed it through several Middle East Christian sources, including newsletters, which were ignored in the media.

Huffington Post report on Ivory Coast massacre:

Figaro report on the massacre (French)

Ivory Coast massacre video, no veils, almost no headscarves

Ivory Coast Muslims imported, now dominate

Egypt violence far from over:

Akhtar Hussain, thank you for making the right choice

I am grateful. Your choice left no grieving widows or orphans that night.

by Don Hank

My Muslim friend Mahmoud sent me an email with an attachment regarding a Pakistani man, Akhtar Hussain, who burned a Bible at a church in Pakistan as a protest against the Koran burning by Terry Jones. The desecrator was arrested and charged with a crime that carries a sentence of up to 10 years.

Mahmoud said that the Bible is a holy book in the Muslim world as well, is himself incensed by this act and is interested in my reaction. Ok.

First I wish I had Mr. Hussain before me. I would like to thank him for making the right choice.

Hear me out, please.

The Christian Post reported the reaction of world Christendom to the Bible burning. It was the usual bland politically correct pabulum, uttered for the consumption of their constituents: “we condemn this act of desecration…”

It was utter hypocrisy, because these clergy desecrate the scriptures constantly by distorting the Word of God every chance they get.

World “Christendom” today is increasingly tolerant of the most crass and outrageous desecration of the scriptures by the clergy. Every Sunday from the pulpit and in their weekday communications with the secular world, “Christian” pastors routinely distort the Word of God, blasphemously declaring that God accepts homosexual marriage and homosexual priests and pastors. They constantly desecrate the legitimacy of government, at variance with the exhortations of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul said the authorities are given their power by God.

Yet most denominations today illegitimately strip the Constitution and the will of the people (in whom governing power is vested) of their authority by endorsing illegal immigration and providing sanctuaries for law breakers.

Many pastors also substitute godless socialism for the legitimate gospel of Jesus Christ, trampling on the “bread of life” doctrine and elevating the doctrine of material bread high above it.

Still others, while claiming to represent conservative Christians, support leftist dogma or godless far-left candidates.

Muslims love it when Christian leaders condemn people for doing what Akhtar Hussain did. And they love it when we say “people like that belong in jail.” It brings them closer to their goal of having the West make laws that protect holy books, at variance with the Constitution and the Magna Carta.

They are hoping that softheaded American Christians will get behind a new bill that may be proposed shortly by the Democrats and one GOP jackass, Lindsay Graham (have you see the video? He really is one), and that is, a bill that would outlaw desecrating the Koran. Now, mind you, the US military burned 2500 Bibles in Afghanistan that were the private property of military personnel, and that is fine with the clergy. Not one Christian leader said “we condemn this act of desecration.” And, while Christian leaders condemn (they seem to savor that word) Terry Jones for sullying a false religion that honors murderers, not one of them objects to the new proposed freedom-crushing legislation.

But what should be done to Akhtar Hussain, you ask?

Well, what would Jesus do?

When Jesus was being murdered, He cried out to His Father: Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Mr. Hussain is a Muslim. For him, the Bible is not holy. For some Muslims it is, but not for all. For him it is not a holy book.

He has not read the Bible and doesn’t know about the saving power and grace of Jesus’ blood.

If the ones who killed Jesus were to be forgiven for their ignorance (even without asking forgiveness), don’t you think Mr. Hussain will be forgiven for his ignorance of the life-giving message of salvation?

I don’t know the answer to that question. If they were Christian clergy desecrating the Word, as is their wont, then there could be no forgiveness, because they know the Word and they know what God expects, and they desecrate the Word in spite of it. So don’t be surprised at how few preachers and priests you see in heaven.

But Hussain probably doesn’t know any of this.

One thing is certain: Hussain’s punishment is not a question for men to decide. God will decide the issue when Mr. Hussain comes before Him at the Seat of Judgment.

When men try to judge people on religious matters and create “religious crimes,” as the Pakistani legislature has, and as Lindsay Jackass Graham and his fellow jackasses on the other side of the aisle want to do in our country, then God is displeased because they are doing what the crowd was doing when they tried to stone the adulteress. Because this is not our domain.

Here is what I say to Akhtar Hussain:

As a Christian, I am saddened that you burned the Bible, but that act proved you don’t understand the Bible. To understand it is to love it, unless you belong to Satan.

But then, for you, given your upbringing, and given what Terry Jones did to a book that you consider holy (wrongfully so), you had a choice. You could have taken a human life or you could have burned that Bible, as you did.

As a result of your choice, there were no grieving widows or orphans that night, just a little pile of ashes and a minuscule quantity of carbon added to the atmosphere of your fair city. God was sad, but He knows your fate and perhaps He is waiting for you to make another choice now.

That’s all you did, and it could lead to something really wonderful. My fingers are crossed.

Not only that, your choice gave Christians all over the world the opportunity to witness to Muslims like you, and, not counting the stupidity of our clergy, we did it by our restraint and tolerance.

Not one Christian anywhere in the world harmed a Muslim over this act of yours. It was not a Christian but a Muslim policeman who placed you under arrest and it will be a Muslim judge to sentence you.

The entire Muslim world can see the contrast between Pakistan’s harsh Sharia law and the angry murderers in Afghanistan and Iraq on the one hand and, on the other, the shining example set by forgiving Christians, who, rather than speak ill of you, pray for you sincerely and wish you the best. I join them tonight in praying that you will find Jesus and that God will bring you great peace, joy, prosperity and happiness.

I also sincerely pray that the judge will be lenient.

Thank you for making the right choice.

Muslims massacre Christians after getting UN support. Obama and European leaders silent. UN does nothing to stop massacre. The West’s involvement in the Middle East is consistently anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, promotes savagery:

Rio School killer a Muslim sympathizer

Man who slaughtered school kids in Rio was nicknamed “Bin Laden,” wanted to fly an airplane into Rio’s Christ the Redeemer

By Julio Severo, with the collaboration of Don Hank

What killed 12 children in a school in Rio? Was it a weapon? Was it violence? Was it prejudice? Conservative Christians? The media are blaming all of these.

According to the Brazilian newspaper Zero Hora, the author of the slaughter, Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, had a predilection for Islam and was fascinated by the Islamic terrorist attack against the US on September 11, 2001.

His dream? To fly an airplane into Christ the Redeemer, a massive statue symbolic of the strong Christian traditions in Brazil.

What was his main motivation to slaughter so many school girls? Was he a homosexual and woman-hater? Although he was in the past a Jehovah’s witness, a heretical sect with doctrines generally rejected by Catholics and Evangelicals, and was obviously confused about biblical truths, Islam is clearly the predominant religious inspiration for his violence and dreams of airborne destruction.

Jehovah’s witness, regardless of their heretical views, have no history of using airplanes for terrorist attacks against buildings or murdering school children. None of the terrorists that attacked the US ten years ago belonged to that religion. But all of them were Muslim.

The mass murderer’s own cousin said: “he considered himself a fundamentalist Muslim and was training himself to pilot airplanes, using a computer game.”

Zero Hora also confirms: “Because he affected a long beard, some neighbors called him Bin Laden.”

Almost none of the mainstream media in English or other languages even mention the murderer’s Islamic sympathy. Imagine if he had expressed admiration for Hitler! Do you think they might have mentioned that?

Read more

Doing evil before someone else beats you to it


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?