Apr 11

60 Minutes: declassify proof of Saudi role in 911 w/ Bush complicity

60 Minutes: Declassify proof that Saudis committed 911 attacks w/ Bush complicity

by Don Hank

CBS’s 60 Minutes presented on April 10, 2016 a “compelling case for releasing 28 pages on 911,” which apparently indict Saudi Arabia for its substantial support for the 911 hijackings and terror. The Bush administration kept these 28 pages secret and the Obama administration continues to keep them locked up.

Whether or not you buy into the theory that the attacks were a false flag and that the Bush administration actually planned and contributed to the carnage, the fact remains that it definitely aided and abetted the enemy by hiding the Saudi complicity in the 911 attacks. We need to focus on that and that alone because it is sufficient to justify a trial for the horrific crime.

I am going to tell you what I think, straight out: The Bush administration is guilty of complicity in the murder of 2-3 thousand Americans. And this in no way mitigates the complicity of the Democrats who voted to keep these 28 pages under wraps and who were also complicit in the murder of thousands of Kosovars (as discussed here and here) and in the murders committed by ISIS, which they refused to stop or even hinder. (Lord willing, I will soon be posting a report on the anti-Serbian Orthodox holocaust in Kosovo that is happening today and is being censored everywhere, even by the Serbian government).

I had said here in June of 2014 that Washington DC is the seat of the Caliphate. I was not talking about any specific political party. They’re all in it together.

The 60 Minutes program is more evidence of the same and once this program has forced the government to declassify those damning 28 pages, the impact will be explosive, not only in the US but in the world at large (Tony Blair was a US puppet who joined the US war on Iraq even though that country had virtually nothing to do with the 911 attacks).

Now since CBS has a leftist slant, we need to guard against the false conclusion that the Republicans are more guilty of such crimes than the Democrats. The Kosovo war, Bill Clinton’s brainchild, and its immediate aftermath saw NATO airstrikes deliberately targeting civilians, as I describe here (if you click on

this link from that commentary, you will see a video taken by a NATO pilot who had deliberately destroyed a civilian train in Kosovo), and hideous crimes like murder for organ harvesting as reported by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here.


PS: I was running out of time and had not intended to post the above commentary on laiglesforum.com. However, I did send it out to a research group of individuals who submit and read articles and comments submitted daily by members of that group (to apply for membership, write to Don Hank at zoilandon@msn.com). I received this response:

Brilliant piece Don!!!! Giving it LEGS!

Ppl are slowly beginning to connect the dots, I believe, on the fact it’s no longer Conspiracy that US Govt. Has Been operating as a Criminal Enterprise for decades.  

I’ve Not read Roger Stone’s recent release on “Jeb, and the Bush Crime Family,” but is on my list of reads, – it’s unfortunate but reality, ALL US media is a propaganda machine for the Oligarchs… Only through bits and pieces, alternative media, websites such as yours, are the ONLY sources for truth anymore… & the MAIN reason TPTB are trying to take control of the internet, to limit the flow of their plans to commit evil against humanity for profit and power…

I want to power puke every time I read a Comment by clueless individuals, who herald the Bushes….OR!!!! use the worn out statement, “Well, at least Bush kept us safe!”

God help us…. So much ignorance in the population it is mind numbing.

Many aren’t able to SEE Truth when it’s right in front of Them!!!!


PPSS: Michael, one of our researchers, just sent this list of references in:

How the FBI is whitewashing the Saudi connection to 9/11 http://tinyurl.com/njllagw

FBI accused of whitewashing Saudi Arabian involvement in 9/11 http://tinyurl.com/l6znceg

Andrew Napolitano: The Saudi Arabian Government’s Involvement In 9/11 Finally Revealed; FBI, Bush and Obama All Covered It Up  http://tinyurl.com/pzeweat

Jeb Bush: “I Don’t Know What the 28 Pages Are”  http://tinyurl.com/ou2jpyc

U.S. Must Stop Protecting 9/11 Terrorism Funders http://tinyurl.com/l77hjal

How Saudi Arabia exports radical Islam http://tinyurl.com/nj6lqhy

“The White House should be called the ‘White Tent.’ http://tinyurl.com/24sjdx4

Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia http://tinyurl.com/p7tao46

Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It http://tinyurl.com/nqhpscm

Largest “moderate” group in Syria calls for “an Islamic state” in country, Sharia law imposed in Northern Aleppo




Apr 08

Commemorating the 1968 anti-Jewish campaign in Poland

Commemorating the March 1968 anti-Jewish campaign in Poland

by Don Hank

The Jerusalem Post recently ran a column commemorating the expulsion of Jews from Poland in March of 1968 in the regime of Wladyslaw Gomulka.

The Jews in communist Poland in 1968 were seen as sympathetic to Israel’s gains in the 6 Day War of 1967, by which Israel seized considerable land, including the Syrian Golan Heights and this angered the communist regime, leading to said expulsion of Jews.

Issues surrounding Israel are always delicate at best, particularly this Six Day War. Note that current Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad’s father Hafez was not yet the leader of Syria at the time of the war, but did side with Russia, which helps explain the Neocon hatred of Bashar Al-Assad today. On the other side of the ledger, Bashar Al-Assad, while still an opponent of Israel due to the loss of territory in the 1967 war, is a stalwart protector of Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Further, in 1994, at President Clinton’s persuasion, his father Hafez had adopted a conciliatory stance toward Israel. Yet when Bashar tried in 2007 to hold peace talks with Israel, the Bush administration took an inexplicable hardline approach. Likewise, Israel rebuffed him with surprising harshness as described here.


“Attempting once again to break the impasse, Syria’s ambassador to the United States called for talks to achieve a full peace agreement with Israel in late July 2008. “We desire to recognize each other and end the state of war,” Imad Mustafa said in remarks broadcast on Israeli army radio. “Here is then a grand thing on offer. Let us sit together, let us make peace, let us end once and for all the state of war.”

Three days later, Israel responded by sending a team of commandos into Syria to assassinate a Syrian general as he held a dinner party at his home on the coast.”

The first paragraph of the above quote is confirmed here, but this source fills in a missing key fact: the Syrians were offering peace in exchange for return of the Golan Heights to Syria.

The last paragraph of this quoted portion is confirmed by no less than the Times of Israel here.

(Footnote: This bizarre behavior becomes understandable only in light of the US’s petrodollar agreement with the Saudis, by which the US became a de facto mercenary force for Saudi Arabia in exchange for the latter’s propping up the US dollar.  By virtue of its economic and security dependence on the US, Israel is also bound to the same terms, creating a de facto US-Israel-Saudi axis. The Saudis’ Wahhabi sect of Sunni will not tolerate any non-Sunni or secular leader in the Middle East and has enlisted US aid in ousting all such leaders since the mid-60s. Thus you will recall that the attackers on September 11, 2001 were almost all Saudis, who belonged to Al-Qaeda, a Saudi-founded and funded terror group. Yet GW Bush completely ignored these facts and gave the Saudis a pass, apparently believing the US public would never figure out the motivation behind his actions. Be sure your sin will find you out… Numbers 32:23).

Later, in the 70s, Russia staged a similar anti-Jewish purge. These events have led some to consider Russia (and to a lesser extent, Poland) to be anti-Jewish. Yet Putin has traveled to Israel and come back with glowing reports of a prosperous and friendly country. He not only apparently has his own personal positive feelings toward Israel but also knows that Russian Christians consider Israel to be the Holy Land that gave them the Bible and Jesus. Unlike Western leaders, Putin honors the culture and religion of his people. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Christians – whether American or Russian – are the most Israel-friendly group in the world. Putin has also negotiated extensively with Netanyahu, who seems to understand Russia’s potential role as an ally and protector, even as it judiciously maintains a precarious balance between Israel and Hezbollah in Syria.

I was in Poland in the early 70s and heard nothing about this purge. In fact I met Jewish people with important posts in the Polish government.

The point is that it was not the Russian or Polish people who spawned the anti-Jewish sentiment that boiled over in Poland in 1968 and in Russia in the 70s. It was the communist government.

While there are still ultranationalist Russian groups trying to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment, Putin has wisely charted a course that circumvents, and where possible, suppresses these groups. (I watch or read almost all of Putin’s press conferences and speeches and can confirm that no audience member ever asks Putin any anti-Semitic question. It is clear to me that he would severely reprimand anyone who dared to express anti-Semitic views.)

The irony of it all is that the Neocons in the West are trying to minimize, smear and eventually overthrow Putin simply because he will not kowtow to them. Yet they must realize that, should Putin leave office, a real hardline warmonger could come along and replace him. One of the main complaints among the Russians is that Putin is too soft on the West but that is because his is a 100% diplomatic style. I think Putin is by far the smartest statesman the world has seen in a long time, perhaps ever.

Thus the Neocons are on a reckless, potentially suicidal course that could end in WW III, a nuclear one at that.

Donald Trump is the only candidate who does not talk like a warmonger. Ironically, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the world is probably safer with a Trump presidency.

Apr 06

Crack analyst confirms my assessment of Panama Papers reporting

Crack analyst agrees with my assessment of Panama “scandal”


by Don Hank

I suggested to you here that the Panama story that falsely linked Russian president Vladimir Putin to an offshore account (in a scheme that is not illegal anyway) was manufactured and reported at this point in time because Putin and Assad had just routed ISIS from Palmyra (and Al-Qaryataini, which I neglected to mention), two brilliant military moves that make Washington’s do-nothing government look almost as bad as it is.

It was a no-brainer for a long-time observer of Russia bashing vs the real Russia.

Here is another long-time observer of the same phenomena, Pepe Escobar, providing essentially the same analysis (minus the fact that the timing is designed to drown out the praise for Putin/Assad’s routing of ISIS) plus some additional details about others allegedly involved and the motives for the exposure of the scandal. For example, Escobar points out that some of the others smeared in the story are prominent in BRICS, an economic union that challenges the US-dominated World Bank and IMF (which I wrote about here, showing why these US led institutions can’t compete in the free market, which is why they are desperate to keep the market from being free – this Panama report is part of that effort).

Note that the leaked story, reported by Russia bashers of long standing, eg, the Guardian and a German paper loyal to NATO (which I discussed at length here), does not mention any of the presumably numerous US clients of the now-smeared Panamanian law firm Mossack and Fonseca. The reporters cherry picked the data to show only the depositors whom the Washington schemers seek to destroy. You may wonder why David Cameron was mentioned. I think it is possibly because Cameron has been promising the UK a referendum to leave the EU and he is linked – wrongly – with the Brexit – which he in fact is trying to derail but is caught between a rock and a hard place because the majority of Brits want out of the EU and he is obliged to pretend he is with them. The US-centric global elites consider him a traitor to their scheme of world domination, of which the EU is the European centerpiece.

This scandal  may well be a shot over his bow to keep him in line with Washington’s desires. But more than anything it was a dragnet intended for Putin, who must be denigrated at all costs by the Washington establishment – which only pretended to fight ISIS for years – so that the public will not admire him for saving Syria from ISIS and making the Washington vipers look like the nest of vipers they are.

Nothing happens that is not politically motivated. And if the msm tells you something, assume it is a lie until proven otherwise.


Apr 05

Russian vs US foreign policy

Russian vs US foreign policy

by Don Hank

Our thanks to our UK friend Viv for a video link to an excellent exposition by Nikolai Starikov, a brilliant geopolitical analyst. The US has some analysts of this caliber, such as Pat Buchanan but will never give them political power. (I had commented here under the heading “Culture,” on the State Department’s puzzling refusal to hire competent geopolitical analysts).

The “professional” analysts in Washington are for the most part anti-analysts who perceive it as their task to ram through an ideology described as “Western values,” whose main purpose is to destroy traditional Western values throughout the world, particularly Christian values (I had shown here that the US-controlled World Bank imposes values that deny sovereignty to Third World countries). The Starikov talk is well worth watching and reading the subtitles! You will hear a real professional analyst in contrast to the absolute know-nothings who are routinely interviewed on TV. There are rare exceptions such as Stephen Cohen, a true expert on Russia who bucks the current and is not afraid to tell the truth.

I viewed the video twice and 4 things became clear:

1—The US government has fostered wars for more than a half century, for example, by creating Pakistan out of India. Why? Starikov implies it is for control. He says that pattern has always been to create a territory and an anti-territory. Pakistan was the anti-India, created by the West. The Satanists in Washington (he doesn’t use that term but it fits perfectly) created Islamic terror groups there to harass India, just as they have done throughout the Middle East and in Kosovo, for example. They think this will give them control over the world (naturally, they will ultimately fail because they can’t deceive enough of their own people indefinitely to keep up this foul game.) Starikov echoes my commentary “Who is the real bully in the Ukraine crisis?,” showing that in Ukraine, the Washington elites had created an “anti-Russia” by initiating and supporting a violent coup and eventually a war. He says that Russia is unable to counter the US strategy simply by recognizing the Lugansk and Donetsk rebel republics because that could lead to war with Russia and thousands of casualties. Russia, by not recognizing these break-away republics, is actually preserving the peace.

2—Starikov advocates using reason and logic and not emotions when forging foreign policy.

3—However, there are hotheads in Russia (such as Alexander Dugin, whom Starikov does not mention by name) who are guided by emotions, and the implementation of their ideas could sabotage the Putin plan, leading to war. (Obviously, Dugin is Putin’s polar opposite in his position on the Ukraine, even though there are Russia-bashing writers who insist that Dugin is Putin’s “mentor,” as I pointed out here).

4—The current Russian government want peace. This is not to say that its motives are all sterling and altruistic. However, peace would ultimately benefit everyone, even the US, by bringing about prosperity and enabling free trade everywhere.

Ironically, if all countries fostered peace, they would all benefit equally, for a win-win situation. What we have now, thanks to US foreign policy, is a lose-lose situation.

While Starikov does not mention this, the US, by constantly antagonizing Russia, eg, with economic sanctions and with a perpetual barrage of anti-Russian commentaries in the msm, as I have pointed out here, for example, is creating enormous resentment in Russia, even though Putin has kept his cool through it all. Should Putin leave office for whatever reason, a leader of a more excitable temperament may very well lack Putin’s discipline and self control and might easily adopt a belligerent stance, threatening war and perhaps even going there. The results would be unthinkable. I believe this is the main reason that shadow-government figures such as Kissinger, Soros and George Friedman have recently warned against further antagonizing Russia. And you may recall that it was these very men who played the Russia bashing game best. So if they are now afraid, caution is advised.

Apr 04

msm: Forget Putin/Assad routed ISIS

msm: forget Putin/Assad liberated Palmyra


by Don Hank


Remember my article “Horrible news! Russia and Assad rout ISIS”?  I just KNEW at that time that the msm would not let this news sink in before they ran a blitz of anti-Putin articles to help you forget. Well, sure enough.

The Neocon propaganda machine is running full tilt now that Putin and Assad routed ISIS from Palmyra even as the US government and NATO sat on their hands and did exactly nothing. The do-nothing West’s embarrassment is so overwhelming that they needed a huge dose of propaganda to hide their red faces. And the msm obliged them with two whoppers today. (I can’t wait to see what they manufacture tomorrow).

First they “broke” a story about how world leaders used an offshore account. These leaders were mostly Western, including David Cameron’s father, and Putin was not involved. Yet the Guardian ran a hit piece making it appear that Putin was the main culprit when it was only a friend of his that was involved. AND it was not illegal! In case you need to, read this to detox your mind.

Likewise, this hit piece from the Activist Post was intended to take your mind off the heroism by Assad and the Russian air force and make the US and NATO look respectable again. In other words, do the impossible.

Among other absurdities, it says

“In 2012, the CIA proposed a clear and specific plan to oust Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad — which likely would have also prevented the phenomenal rise of ISIL —”

Woa there! Simmer down! How could ousting Assad have stopped ISIS when it was the US (along with their buds the Saudis) that spawned ISIS in the first place and it was ultimately Assad’s troops that routed them, with Russian assistance?

And nota bene: the author never explains how ousting Assad could have helped stop ISIS. This assumption that ousting Assad would stop ISIS has been used for years but none of the msm propagandists even TRIES to explain how or why because the msm figure the sheeple will swallow their swill every time.

It’s like 2 friends, one of whom invests in a stock that then skyrockets in value, and he also has urged the other friend, who is kind of slow, to do likewise. So when the smart friend strikes it rich, the stupid friend — who kept his money under a mattress — resents him and goes around telling everyone that the now-rich friend is to blame that the stupid one didn’t invest. Come on, Folks, you aren’t falling for this malarkey are you?

These ex Obama officials quoted in the article are Neocons who want to work in the next administration and are hoping it will be anyone but Trump! They know that the public – which they assume is Russophobic and still fighting the cold war – will join them in their irrational hatred of Putin even though ISIS would still be slaughtering Christians in Syria without his help. These same ex-officials went on Fox News to repeat these same absurdities.

Even if Putin and Assad had subdued every terrorist in the world, no Western reporter would give them credit. Instead, they would claim that they started the terror in the first place. Remember when they all shrieked back in September that Putin ONLY wanted to defeat the “rebels” and were no doubt in bed with ISIS? Now that that myth is deconstructed, they’ve lost no time in cranking out new ones.

This is how the war machine works, Folks, starting with propaganda. If you fall for these stories and dutifully hate Russia and Assad, WW III could be just around the corner.

This time, let’s just say no.


Apr 03

Who is the REAL bully in the Ukraine crisis?

Who is the REAL bully in the Ukraine crisis?


by Don Hank


The anti-Trump Neocons at Fox News are at it again. They recently aired interviews with ex-officials of the Obama government who blamed most of the world’s current ills on Russia, calling Putin a bully (standard fare today) because his country defended the Russians in Crimea and extended the offer to hold a referendum and should it succeed, to accede to Mother Russia. The Neocon-backed Kiev thugs were backed up by the biggest bully of all: The Washington DC government.

During the Maidan coup, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was on hand in Kiev, handing out cookies to the rioters (knowing that this was an illegal armed confrontation). The story of Nuland’s perfidious role in the Kiev violence is documented here. Nuland admitted on video here that it cost the State Department $5 billion to create the ignominiously failed state of Ukraine, which today has an economy equivalent to that of Haiti.

George Soros also admitted on the Fareed Zakaria program that he had a hand in the Ukraine coup, as I pointed out here. And we all know that if George had a hand in this coup, it must have been the right thing to do, right?

To get an idea of how this “democratic” experiment has fared so far, you need only read this report:


“In little over a year, living standards in Ukraine have fallen by half, the value of the currency has slumped by more than two-thirds, and inflation has skyrocketedto 43%. Yet, even as the economy has collapsed, the government has insisted on economic policies that can only be termed suicidal.

By tearing up contracts with Russia in 2014, Ukraine’s defence and aviation industries lost 80% of their income.”

Putin’s actions to protect his people certainly does not make him a bully by anyone’s standards except those of the State Department and our increasingly Neocon government. In fact, Putin would be seen as a bully by his constituents if he denied them protection and sided with Washington.

You say why did the Russian speakers need protection? The photos in this article and this video illustrate it best.

Two films present a balanced picture of the Ukraine war, one made by a German and one made by a French film maker.

You can view the German documentary in English here and the French film with subtitles here.

Now, given the above background facts, let us take a quick look at the presidential hopefuls of both parties and their views on the Ukraine conflict. This article provides a summary showing that almost all of the Republicans and Hillary on the Democrat side (they do not mention Trump or Sander) want to “arm Ukraine,” meaning the Kiev government that caused all the destruction and death of the civilians depicted in the above-linked articles and videos.

Even Ted Cruz, who is supported by various “pro-life” groups, is one of those who wants to arm the Kiev government that is killing off Eastern Ukrainian civilians. As if 8000 dead is not enough.

Hillary has said here:

“I am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.”

Thus Hillary, like most of the GOP candidates, apparently has no regrets that the State Department she headed created the conditions for a coup in the Ukraine, plunging the country into chaos and war, and thinks that Putin is to blame for everything because his protection of his fellow Russians there is “destabilizing” the country. He should let them die. When she says “do more,” she is saying sanctions aren’t enough. Other than sanctions, there would be military options, but she won’t commit to that. However, she is the one who cackled when NATO and its terrorist allies brutally murdered Ghadaffi. How’s that for compassion?

Bernie Sanders calls for a “measured response” but says the US should “stand up” to Putin for protecting his people.

So if a bully in the schoolyard were to pick on a skinny kid and the skinny kid turned out to be a black belt in karate and had some friends who knew how to fight, apparently, Bernie and Hillary would say someone needs to “stand up” to the skinny kid and support the bully.

Trump’s view is reported here:


“Putin does not respect our president whatsoever,” said Trump.

But he held back from promising more U.S. support for a nation where almost 8,000 people have been killed since April 2014, saying that it was Europe’s responsibility.

This reporting style, which we have come to expect from the msm, makes it seem as if all 8000 victims had been killed by Putin. Yet the Eastern Ukrainians have no planes and do not invade the Western part of the country, whereas Western Ukrainian government has been sending in the bombers to the East. How’s this for biased reporting aimed at making voters hate and distrust Trump?

While Trump too seems to miss the tragic plight of the Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine, he has been the candidate whose statements least reflect a willingness to plunge the US into war or to aid the aggressive Kiev government and its fascist militias.



Apr 02

Assad’s engineers unearth ISIS horrors in Palmyra

Assad’s engineers unearth horrors in Palmyra. We have Washington to thank


by Don Hank


Following the liberation of Palmyra by the Russians and Assad’s forces, horrors were unearthed.



Palmyra mass grave: Tortured women & children among dozens of ISIS victims unearthed by Syrian Army

The Syrian Army is unearthing a mass grave consisting of at least 40 corpses, many of them women and children. They were butchered by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the recently liberated ancient city of Palmyra.

The grave was discovered by engineers and “popular defense forces” in the Masakin al-Jahizia neighborhood of the city, which lies only 500 meters from the ancient ruins, SANA reports.

This is reminiscent of the Russian liberation of Auschwitz, another act of bravery and heroism by the Russians that gets short shrift in the history books.

I would not be surprised if historians started attributing the liberation of Palmyra to the US and NATO.

Listen, folks, this city, where priceless ancient art treasures were blown to bits and Christians and other minorities had their throats slashed, was saved NOT by the US government or NATO, which sat on their hands as the city was destroyed — even though those caravans of white ISIS Toyotas presented a perfect target for air bombing. It was criminal negligence. But it was worse than that. The US and its European partners supported the armed uprising against Assad from the very start and supplied the terrorists with arms.

Palmyra was finally saved by Russia and the Syrian government — the ones you and I are told to hate, and many of us obediently hate them, without an inkling of who they are. They hate them because the media and the Establishment told them to. Many naïve Americans who call themselves anti-Establishment go right along with the plot. And yet they are playing into a system that threatens not only our country but the fate of planet earth.


We must never forget the words of the majority of GOP presidential candidates trying to sound like tough guys and talking garbage, saying that if they were president, the US would shoot down Russian planes in Syria or drive them out.

Friends, we will never be a free nation if we can’t distinguish wisely between friend and foe and between demagogue politicians and intelligent men who know what’s best for America (we have one such candidate but are being told to hate him too).

The shameful truth is that Washington PAID and ARMED so-called “rebels,” many of them belonging to Al-Qaeda, and other leaders wiser and more moral than ours defeated them and their ally ISIS. Do I need to remind you that Al-Qaeda – which receives US aid in Syria – is the terror group that killed between 2 and 3 thousand Americans on our own soil?

Talk about distinguishing friend from foe! America so far has not shown that ability!

I heard Carly Fiorina say in one of the debates that she would shoot down Russian planes in Syria. Did she not know that they were the only ones willing and able to defeat ISIS? That is not only evil but in fact, intensely stupid and suicidal. Russia and China would then team up and WW III, a nuclear war, would inevitably follow. What alarmed me the most was that not one reporter in the room challenged that brainless statement and the US public sort of sat there mesmerized, wondering if she was right, imagining that allowing Russia and Assad to defeat ISIS would be a catastrophe instead of the blessing that it truly was. But she was in good company. John Kasich expressed similar racist hatred for all things Russian and promised to confront them if elected.

And let’s see what a potential next president thinks of Putin, the man chiefly responsible for the heroic liberation of Palmyra from ISIS:

“If U.S. foreign policy is so bungled that it makes Putin seems like the good guy and an advocate for peace, we have done something very, very wrong,” he said.

Gee, Ted, are you sorry that Putin drove ISIS out of major swaths of Syria, saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children? Does defeating ISIS seem like a bad thing to you? And yet you seem to think NATO, the organization that killed Ghadaffi, destroyed Kosovo and plunged vast regions into chaos that sent millions of refugees — riddled with terrorists — to Europe, must be strengthened? And an alarming number of Americans are now condemning Trump, the only man in the pack who said we should allow Putin to destroy ISIS and possibly abolish NATO. (See this article for insight into what NATO has done to destabilize vast swaths of territory and cause untold harm in Europe and the Middle East).

If America survives this next decade, it will NOT be thanks to our wisdom, but purely by the grace of God!

Don Hank


Apr 01

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?


by Don Hank


In an article titled “Corey Lewandowski set up by man-hating scammer,” Kelleigh Nelson portrays Michelle Fields as a feminist scammer posing as a conservative.

I also saw reports that Fields is a serial accuser of men but did not forward them, waiting instead for confirmation. I just now found confirmation of her accusation against Allen West here. It is hard to imagine that this woman is constantly being harassed by conservative men — especially when there are plenty of Democrat satyrs like Bill Clinton out there, with whom she must have come into contact plenty of times. It doesn’t smell right.

BTW, I am surprised that almost the entire pro-life community seems to have condemned Trump for saying that if abortion is declared to be a crime, then women who attempt abortions should be punished. Pro-lifers have always said that abortion is murder. A woman who tries to have an abortion would be an attempted murderer in that case, no question. Yet, the pro-life community has done what appears to be an about-face, as if they accept at face value the hype that feminists have been peddling for years.

After all, if women are to be treated as untouchables, then what if the abortion provider is a woman? Wouldn’t she have to be let off as well?

I suspect the whole issue is centered around the fact that Cruz, who glibly condemns Trump no matter what he says or does, has used the same tactics as GW Bush, portraying himself as God’s man.

If Bush was God’s man when he invaded Iraq, why were the Assyrian Christians forced to leave the country after we “won” the war there?

If he is not God’s man, then how can Evangelicals be so sure that Cruz, whose view on war is almost identical to that of Bush, is God’s man?

Has God really chosen a man to lead us to the promised land? Or is this another delusion — like so many many before it?

The Neocons said they wanted to use Christians to do their bidding. If they succeed again in deceiving Christiasn, how are non-Christians to take our faith seriously? Should we not be looking to our Savior instead of seeking an earthly Messiah?

Here is what I wrote about Neoconservatism:


Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather” of the (Neoconservative) movement, “has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere. (using naive Christians to do their dirty work — Don)

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” [my highlighting] (any “Christian who allows himself to be led around by the nose by such ungodly people is disobeying God and committing a grievous sin!)

Jesus said be wise as serpents. That was a commandment, not a suggestion.

This commentary is not intended as an endorsement for any candidate. All of them are grievously flawed. However, there is a contrast in the area that I consider more important than all the rest, and that is, the flippant attitude of so many conservatives toward war, particularly with Russia and its allies (including China). The Neoconservatives have always shown an irrational and virtually racist hatred of Russia and many thoughtless Christians have bought into the now-debunked myth that God and Magog in Isaiah represented Russia (these place names were recently found in the Assyrian court records and were found in what is now Turkey).

Judging by the reckless statements of these people in the GOP campaign, many of them are more afraid of losing political power than they are of nuclear war. Americans have never seen war up close and personal, let alone nuclear war and are wholly unqualified to flirt with it – need I remind you, nuclear war could wipe out all of life or at least set civilization back 4000 years or so.

We ought to know that all the elements for such a war are in place and all we need is a warmongering Russian hating president to usher it in.

Cruz has said we should “push back Russia” in Syria. How can we reconcile this with the fact that the US was a co-creator of ISIS in the first place and has no political will to defeat ISIS? Or that Russian ally Assad is the only Middle Eastern leader who protects Christians? Russia is the only world power in Syria that does not have dirty hands and at the same time, is effectively combating ISIS. How can we therefore ignore our ignominious role in creating and even arming ISIS and pretend that we are morally superior to Russia? Cruz also calls Putin a dictator, hewing to the Neocon party line. Yet Putin is the duly elected president of Russia and enjoys a popularity rating that is the envy of the world.

If Christians, particularly those who are part of the pro-life movement, are seen as supporting a pro-war candidate who recklessly wants to push around another nuclear power, regardless of his pro-life statements, what does this do to their image, their credibility and their effectiveness in the pro-life movement?

I welcome comments both pro and con. This is the time for an honest objective debate on this issue.

Apr 01

ISIS always claim responsibility, except in Turkey

by Don Hank

What is Erdogan up to?

Have you noticed that after ISIS perpetrates a terror attack, it invariably claims responsibility within a day of the attack – except in a certain country.

I did some research and was able confirm this regularity of ISIS claims of responsibility in all the hits I got in a targeted search.

You can take part in this research too: In your search engine type


isis claims responsibility


and see what comes up. Here are some I found. Just a few examples. However, these came up randomly in the search, and there are none attributed to ISIS that was unclaimed. Do you see the pattern in this worldwide panorama?


The Brussels attacks on an airport and the metro were reported on March 22:


ISIS claims responsibility for Brussels airport and metro attacks of Tues 22 March on the same day as the attacks.



Deadly blast in Damascus on Jan 31, 2016. ISIS claims responsibility that same day.



Blast in Dagestan March 30, 2016 Happened Tues, ISIS claimed responsibility on Wednesday, one day later:



Convert to Christianity stabbed Mar 23 in Bangladesh; ISIS claims responsibility the next day.



Now keep something in mind: A few months ago, Turkey and Saudi Arabia started a military buildup obviously in preparation for an attack in Syria, ostensibly against ISIS, but suspected to be against the Russians and Assad. They’d need a really good excuse. The Kurdish attacks would not convince their allies since Obama and Putin had both decided to assist the Kurds in Syria, a big hurdle for Turkish president Erdogan.

Around this time, Turkey suffered some terror attacks. Some were claimed by the Kurds. The Turkish government blamed the unclaimed ones on ISIS (ever hear of a false flag?).


“Kurdish rebels, Isis and a leftist extremist group have carried out attacks in the country recently. Ankara was already on alert after 103 people were killed before the general election in October in a suicide attack on a pro-Kurdish rally, which the government blamed on Isis [my emphasis]. A suicide bombing blamed on Isis killed 11 German tourists and one Peruvian in Istanbul in January.”

For Turkey, I tried a search with these terms:

isis claims responsibility ankara german tourists attack

I got the following hit and others like it reporting the attack and the Turkish government’s accusation of ISIS I found but no reports of ISIS claiming responsibility. How odd:



I also got the following hit reporting that Turkey invaded Iraq and Syria in “retaliation” for the attack, even though ISIS never claimed responsibility.



Isn’t it interesting that when ISIS launches terror attacks anywhere in the world it claims responsibility almost immediately – except in Turkey, where only the government blames ISIS. And funny thing:
Turkey invades Syria and Iraq to avenge itself of ISIS even though ISIS did not claim responsibility for the attacks in question.

Now Turkey has smart analysts and knows that ISIS always claims responsibility for its attacks. Therefore, it had to know that ISIS was not responsible. So why would it attack ISIS in two Middle Eastern countries in retaliation for attacks it knew were not committed by ISIS?

CBS reports (along with numerous other outlets) that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are threatening to send ground troops to Syria to fight Daesh (ISIS) and states that analysts fear the fighting could get out of hand. Translation: The Saudis and Turks have been behind the fight against Assad for years and this threatened incursion into Syria could (probably would) end up being a war between Turkey and the Saudis on the one hand and Syrian government forces, Russia and Iran on the other. The Turkish attacks were almost certainly just a ruse, or a means of opening the door for further military incursions in Syria. They were most likely also a way of securing US permission to make such incursions. The US did not take the bait.

Fortunately, none of the Neocon candidates was president or WW III could be about to happen. There is only one candidate who has not threatened war but he is the one the media are targeting as a potential warmonger.

He’s right. They are liars.






Mar 31

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

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


by Don Hank

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Russia really a threat to freedom?

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

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

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

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

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

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

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

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

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

Thank you!




Older posts «

» Newer posts