Over The Top

Melbourne's Pains

Repression by men in black uniforms is not a good look

Peter Hitchens
Mail on Sunday

The great city of Melbourne in Australia is now under a severe six-week curfew from 8pm until 5am.  Its businesses are crippled. Even the authorities admit it could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Muzzles are, of course, compulsory. Inhabitants can leave their homes only once a day for essential supplies and food, and once for one hour of exercise, within a three-mile radius.




The local police chief, Shane Patton, fetchingly dressed in black shirt and black tie (does he know no history?) is pleased that non-muzzle-wearers are being ‘shunned’ and says his officers ‘had’ to smash into cars whose drivers did not co-operate with stop and search

Police and soldiers are hammering on the doors of those who have tested positive for Covid (who are now forbidden to exercise), to check they are at home. Huge fines face those who don’t comply.

Victoria State Premier Daniel Andrews says: ‘We can no longer have people simply out and about for no good reason… you will be stopped and you will be asked and need to demonstrate that you are lawfully out and you are not breaching that curfew.’

The local police chief, Shane Patton, fetchingly dressed in black shirt and black tie (does he know no history?) is pleased that non-muzzle-wearers are being ‘shunned’ and says his officers ‘had’ to smash into cars whose drivers did not co-operate with stop and search.  Why this wild repression? Because of 15 deaths in a day, mostly among the very old, in a state of more than six million people. Once again, the words ‘out of proportion’ spring to mind.

I predict that a major British city will be subjected to something similar in the coming winter.  Strikingly, it is in the formerly free English-speaking world, inheritors of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, that the most severe attack on freedom is happening. They seem confident we will not defend it.

A Brutal Nation That Threatens All Mankind

The Uyghur Emergency

By The Editors
National Review Online


When people talk about what the Chinese government is doing to the Uyghur people in northwest China, they tend to refer to the Nazis. They can be excused.

In April 2018, Jerome A. Cohen raised the specter of the Nazis. He is considered the dean of China scholars in the United States, born in 1930. He is a very careful, judicious man. He would not use the N-word — “Nazi” — lightly. But he said that what was happening to the Uyghurs reminded him of his relatives in Austria and Germany. Some 40 of them were killed.

At the beginning of this month, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post had an article headed “In China, every day is Kristallnacht.” He noted that you are not supposed to bring up the Nazis, because the Holocaust was a unique event. Yet, in a discussion of northwest China, the Nazis are hard to avoid.

The government has rounded up more than a million Uyghurs and other minorities, throwing them into concentration camps, or “reeducation” camps. These camps constitute a Chinese gulag archipelago.

Obedience Becomes Null and Void

When a State Goes to War Against Its Citizens

Augusto Zimmermann writes:

. . . according to [John] Locke the state puts itself into a "state of war" against society every time it attempts to undermine our basic rights and freedoms.  Being God-given and inalienable, even if one seeks to bargain these rights away, one simply cannot succeed because natural rights are not the sort of things than can actually be bargained.  Such rights to life, liberty and property set limits on civil authority, thus providing a lawful justification for civil resistance against political tyranny should they be violated.  To the extent that the state does not recognise and protest these rights, it actually ceases to be a legitimate authority and the people can lawfully dismiss it for breach of trust. 

As Locke himself put it: 

Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people [that is, their rights to life, liberty and property], or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.  

[Augusto Zimmermann, Christian Foundations of the Common Law.  Volume 2: The United States (Brisbane: Connor Court Publishing, p. 2018), p. 68f.]

A Most Wicked Court

Authorities To Arrest Canadian Father If He Refers To Trans Child As Her Real Sex


Clark will be subject to arrest if any police officer has 'reasonable' grounds to believe that he's referred to his daughter as female in public or private. 

Jeremiah Keenan
The Federalist


Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.

At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private. [Emphasis, ours.  Remember the Good Old Days when liberals assured all and sundry they were only interested in restraining public speech--that is, speech uttered in the "public square".  Certainly, most indubitably private speech would remain free as a bird.  Now, in that bastion of liberty, Canada an individual cannot go into his closet and whisper an incantation to himself without Big Brother's control.] 

The new order further stipulated not only that Clark must not discuss his daughter’s sex or gender identity in public, but also that he cannot share court documents describing his own gag order. On the one hand, this demand may seem ironic, since it covers a publicly available court ruling. On the other hand, the injunction is so broad that it naturally includes the very document upon which it is written and that document–with its threats of immediate arrest without warrant–has not, as of yet, been made available on the court’s website.

Running It Tough

Trump, Kim, and the Boys in the Camps

By Jay Nordlinger
National Review Online




President Trump did an excellent thing at the State of the Union address last January. He honored Ji Seong-ho, an almost superhuman defector from North Korea. Ji escaped the country on crutches. I saw him at the Oslo Freedom Forum a couple of weeks ago. As I wrote, “he projects an air of ebullience. I can’t help thinking he is happy to be alive.”

Trump has said some shocking things in recent hours. For example, he said the following about Kim Jong-un: “He is very talented. Anybody who takes over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it, and run it tough. I don’t say he was nice or say anything about it. He ran it, few people at that age — you could take one out of 10,000, could not do it.”

It is unclear how old Kim is. Probably, he was 28 when he inherited the dictatorship. But that is a triviality.

He has certainly “run it tough,” if that’s the way you want to characterize Kim’s rule over North Korea. His father chose him for his dictatorial mettle.

Vast Overreach of Power By US Courts

Nationwide Injunctions Are a Threat to America's Constitutional Order

By Jeff Sessions
United States Attorney General
National Review Online

Using nationwide injunctions to shut down elected officials from carrying out our laws effectively silences the people who voted for them.

[Editor’s Note: This essay is adapted from a speech given to the Federalist Society’s National Student Symposium on March 10, 2018.]

Under our Constitution, Congress writes our laws, the executive branch carries out our laws, and the judiciary applies those laws to cases and controversies.

These branches are coequal. The courts are not superior. On matters of policy, the branches that are directly accountable to the people must be given proper respect. That’s why it’s so alarming that judges are increasingly issuing nationwide injunctions — orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing an executive-branch policy or executing a statute. These injunctions block the government from carrying out a law — not just in one district or to one person, but anywhere in America.

Scholars have not found a single example of any judge issuing that type of extreme remedy in the first 175 years of the Republic. In just over one year in office, President Trump has been hit with 22, more than any other president in our history.

The Face of Tyranny

Never Stop Applauding

The Spirit of Slavery and the Madness of The Tyrant

Blogger Patterico has posted that he has commenced reading Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. This just happens to coincide with our reading Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History.  Since we have written a couple of posts about the Gulag based on excerpts from Applebaum's excellent, thoroughly approachable history, it's relevant to add in Patterico's quotation from Solzhenitsyn's masterpiece.

Patterico quotes Solzhenitsyn as follows:

Here is one vignette from those years as it actually occurred. A district Party conference was underway in Moscow Province. It was presided over by a new secretary of the District Party Committee, replacing one recently arrested. At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with “stormy applause, rising to an ovation.” For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the “stormy applause, rising to an ovation,” continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin.

However, who would dare to be the first to stop?

Official Intolerance and Oppression

Secularist Religious Orthodoxy in the UK

With a few notable exceptions, New Zealand generally follows the United Kingdom in its education policies.  If this continues, we predict that before long we will see the State requiring that private Christian schools teach radical left-wing religious beliefs.

Private schools exist in New Zealand, as they do in many other countries, precisely because there is a section of the public that do not believe their particular state education system reflects the beliefs, values, and perspectives of some parents.  Therefore, parents seek non-State controlled education for their children in order that parental beliefs and values can be reflected and reinforced at the day schools attended by their children.  Moreover, such schools often produce higher educational outcomes in general.

But now, in Britain, the State is beginning to pressure, and probably ultimately persecute, such schools.

 A private Orthodox Jewish elementary school called the Vishnitz Girls School in Hackney, north London, is facing closure by the British government because it does not include curriculum that teaches children about homosexuality and gender reassignment surgery.

According to Heat Street, a report by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Schools (Ofsted) says that the Vishnitz Girls School does not teach its 212 attending children — aged three through eight — “a full understanding of fundamental British values.”  The report explained that the girls “are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles.” [The Blaze]

 The battle lines are drawn.  On the one hand, the private Orthodox Jewish school teaches traditional (and biblical) doctrines about gender and human sexuality.  On the other, the State is declaring that such views are unlawful and must be squashed.

The Ghosts of Ahab and Jezebel Have Returned

Tyrannical Powers

Asset forfeiture has rapidly devolved into a form of state tyranny.  In New Zealand the practice of seizing assets from criminals is still bound fairly narrowly by law.  But in the United States, the seizing of assets from innocent citizens has rapidly become an ignoble, gross injustice.  

The struggle to outlaw the practice continues.  Eventually it will be overthrown, we trust.  Opposition includes people from all sides of the political spectrum.  It is a practice so immoral, so unjust, so venal and so tyrannical that it deserves the moniker "Ahabism" after the notorious King Ahab of Israel and his Phoenician queen, Jezebel.

Kevin Williamson updates us on the current state of Ahabism in the United States.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: Where Due Process Goes to Die

Police can take your money or property and keep it, even if no charges are filed.

Kevin D. Williamson
National Review Online

Clarence Thomas is famously taciturn on the bench. But his few words carry a great deal of weight.

Though the matter has not yet come before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas is very much at the center of a federal case with a name that sounds like it ought to have come from a William Gaddis novel: United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency. The case has the potential to help rein in one of the most abused powers enjoyed by American government: asset forfeiture.

The case involves a New York couple, Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland, who lost the above-mentioned $17,900 to police in a case in which no charges were ever filed against them. They sued for recovery of their money, and — incredibly — a federal court found that they lacked standing to sue for possession of their own assets. The D.C. Circuit Court sees things differently and has ruled in favor of allowing Rodriguez and Copeland to at least have their day in court and attempt to reclaim their money.
Current asset-forfeiture practice, like much that is wrong with U.S. law enforcement, has its roots in the so-called war on drugs.

Obama Is Joe McCarthy Redivivus

Vast Overreach

President Obama did much more to undermine free speech than the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy. Senator Joe focused upon Hollywood, attempting to destroy those whose opinions he disagreed with.  Obama perverted the office of the Presidency and issued Executive Orders willy nilly, threatening non-compliants with destruction of livelihoods.  Most of his regal decrees had the objective of forcing the nation into a "wunnerful Progressive Paradise".  

The Federalist recently carried a piece with an example of how far command and control has been asserted over US citizens.

For hundreds of years, the meat-packing industry bore the responsibility for transforming Bessie the Cow into carnivores’ favorite source of protein, and more recently the Food Safety and Inspection Service inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ensured that the finished product was “safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.”

Not so anymore. Due to agency rules issued during the Obama era, FSIS inspectors enjoy expanded duties, including monitoring facilities for any “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” communication (no, not among the animals). Should they uncover any such communication, inspectors are empowered to take “corrective action,” even if that involves slicing and dicing fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

No, this is not a joke.  FSIS inspectors have been directed and empowered to regulate the speech of  anyone in a meat processing facility.  The speech in these institutions has to comply with what the government has certified as "respectful" or "non-insulting" speech.

"What in the world does speech (written or verbal) in a meat processing plant have to do with cleanliness or hygiene?" we hear you ask.  Well, to be frank, we find that question to be impertinent, and impertinence is definitely disrespectful. So there.  Our great and noble President Obama decreed it so.  Eat them apples.

Take the case of Don and Ellen Vander Boon, the owners of West Michigan Beef Company.

The breakroom at West Michigan Beef includes tables that essentially serve as a repository for newspapers, magazines, articles, and other forms of literature that employees or the owners wish to share with those who care to read them. Think of it as a pre-technological Facebook.  . . .

In 2015, following the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that purported to redefine marriage for the entire country, various employees shared articles and information related to the decision. Don participated by sharing an article that expressed the traditional Christian view that God designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman and set forth reasons for that position.

When a USDA public health veterinarian, the on-site inspector, saw the article in the breakroom, well, he had a cow. He removed the article and reported it to his USDA supervisor. The pair stampeded into Don’s office and threatened to remove USDA inspectors—effectively shutting down the facility—if Don returned the article to the breakroom, stating the article was offensive and harassing under expanded agency rules.

We will destroy your business if you fail to comply!  Welcome to the wonderful world of Obamian liberty and freedom.  Be reminded, dear reader, that this is going on in the "Land of the Free".

This ban on Don’s speech appears to have been grounded on the USDA’s “Anti-Harassment Policy Statement” issued in July 2015, which prohibits written or oral communications that USDA officials consider “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” on the basis of sexual orientation.

Notably, the feelings about which the USDA is concerned are not those of Don and Ellen’s 45 employees, but rather those of the handful of USDA inspectors working in the Vander Boon’s federally regulated plant. So much so that the company’s breakroom for company employees must be intellectually sterilized, lest an inspector catch a glimpse of an “insulting” article while walking through the breakroom.

We trust that the Trump Administration will lead all such perversions to the slaughterhouse.

Self-Autonomy Means Tyranny Over Others

Christian Bakery Loses Appeal over ‘Gay Cake’ Discrimination Conviction

Donna Rachel Edmunds
Breitbart London

The Christian owners of Ashers Baking Company have lost their appeal to overturn a conviction which found them guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake bearing a slogan which promoted gay marriage.

The Court of Appeal in Belfast upheld the previous judgement, filed last year, which found that the company had discriminated against local gay rights activist Gareth Lee by failing to provide a cake bearing a picture of Bert and Ernie with the slogan “support gay marriage”. The initial judgement ordered them to pay £500 in compensation to Mr. Lee.

The owners, Daniel and Amy MacArthur, said that they were happy to serve Mr. Lee, but felt unable to make a cake endorsing a message they did not agree with. They, therefore, argued that they had not discriminated against Mr. Lee, but had merely declined to support his cause.

Speaking on their behalf during the case, John Larkin QC, Attorney General for Northern Ireland, said if the County Court ruling against Ashers was right, the laws used against the bakery fall foul of Northern Ireland’s constitutional law.

The End-Game of Radical Individual Autonomy

Tradition and Law

Rod Dreher
The American Conservative

Excerpts:

. . .  the law is (generally) not crassly used for enrichment of the powerful, as you might think. That’s not my claim. My claim is this:

• All law, aside from procedural and administrative law, is legislated morality. It embodies a particular view of the Good, of transcendent moral order. 
• The Christian moral order — or, if you like, the Judeo-Christian tradition as revealed in the Bible — has generally been the basis for our laws in the American tradition.
• But this is no longer the case, not really. Our society has lost a genuinely Christian view of moral order. That’s not to say that the moral order is anti-Christian, necessarily, only that the extent to which it reflects a Christian view is incidental, given that contemporary American culture, especially elite legal culture, has severed itself cleanly from its base in Christian morality and metaphysics. For better or for worse, this is the reality we’re living out.
• Therefore, absent a transcendent basis for our laws, the law ceases to be something that attempts to mirror the divine order (that is, the law doesn’t point to a reality beyond itself), but rather becomes  merely about manipulating things to achieve ends we choose.

This does not mean, I hasten to say, that the makers and interpreters of the law will use it to enrich themselves and hoard power. To the contrary, I would say that principled liberals are not cynical . . . .  They genuinely believe they are pursuing the Good. The problem from a traditional Christian point of view is that the telos, the ultimate Good they are pursuing, is expanding individual autonomy, the sovereignty of the individual.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

500 Pounds of Stratosphere

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

We are now at that stage of our cultural devolutionary farce when, any day now, some bright kid is going to wear a tee-shirt to his government school, and on that tee-shirt a message will be emblazoned, and the message will read “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and he will be sent home for having displayed un-American sentiments.

The news in this department is unrelentingly bad. This next item is not to be filed under “hypothetical reductio,” but rather under what looks to be standard operating procedure in blue states now. In just a few weeks, Massachusetts begins its official persecution of churches that remain faithful to the Bible. Churches are included in the sweeping diktat, and these churches must refer to all sexually confused people in accordance with their chosen “gender identity,” or else.

As one web site has aptly summarized it, “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” We have moved well past the point where we need to document such abuses—no need for that when it is raining abuses now. Not only is it raining abuses, it is raining absurd abuses. The secularist, tethered to nothing, anchored firmly to 500 pounds of stratosphere, sets up a hue and cry about genital mutilation in the Middle East, and then in the next breath wants to make it illegal for anyone in this country even to object to our forms of secularist genital mutilation (i.e. youth transgenderism).

In Yemen, the mutilation of a young girl’s genitals is descried as primitive and backward. And yet now in Massachusetts, if a church objects to vile parents having a young boy’s penis cut off, those who object to this are classified as haters.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Love and Liberty

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

The theme we have been developing is that self-government is the ground of all other government. Men and women who cannot govern themselves will in fact be governed by others. The less government they have at home, in the heart, the more government from the outside will necessarily be imposed.

This liberty we are speaking of—at this individual level—is the liberty to do right, which is not the same thing as the liberty to do as you please. But we must be careful here.

Tactical Victory in Norway--But The War Continues

Norway Reunites Seized Children With Family

International Pressure Bears Fruit

The Bodnariu family’s ordeal ends, but advocates vow to keep fighting for reforms.

By Jayme Metzgar
The Federalist

A child welfare case in Norway that has been grabbing headlines and stirring protests worldwide came to a sudden end late last week.

The story, which I covered in depth for The Federalist in April, centers on Marius and Ruth Bodnariu and their five young children. Marius, a Romanian citizen, and Ruth, a native Norwegian, first ran afoul of Norway’s child protective services (called Barnevernet) in November 2015. After privately interviewing the family’s two oldest daughters at school, Barnevernet abruptly took all five children into emergency custody: first the girls, then the younger boys, and finally the three-month-old baby.

Charges focused on the family’s occasional use of physical discipline (which is banned in Norway), but lawyers pointed to troubling CPS statements about the Bodnarius’ Christian faith, suggesting religious discrimination had also played a role. Despite medical exams and interviews with family members, doctors, and neighbors, Barnevernet was unable to find any evidence of abuse. Still, the children were split up among three foster homes, where they stayed for months with minimal parental contact.

Letter From the UK (About Something Smelly)

Jailed... For a Very Odd Non-crime 

Peter Hitchens
The Daily Mail

In the same way that we have to allow free speech to those we despise, we must be most careful to ensure justice for those who are different from us, and with whom we can’t easily sympathise.

So a nasty shiver ran up and down my spine when I saw that Lorna Moore, a convert to Islam who married a Muslim, has been locked up for a very odd offence.  In fact, I know of no other offence like it in English law. This young mother has been imprisoned for not informing on her husband.


I’ve yet to see any conclusive proof that she actually knew he was planning to join a terror group. Somehow or other, a return ticket to Majorca was taken as evidence that she was planning to run away to Syria with a husband she loathes.

And my English heart revolts at the idea of a wife being forced by law to inform on her husband. This is sinister, totalitarian stuff, alien to everything we stand for.

Those who drafted the 2000 Terrorism Act should be ashamed of enacting it. Can they have meant to lock up this person, so undangerous that she was allowed to be out on bail for three months between conviction and sentence?

Will it be children next, snatched into custody for not sneaking to the police about their parents’ conversations? This reminds me of the nauseating cult of Pavlik Morozov, whom Soviet children were taught to revere because he reported his father to the secret police.

There used to be a statue of this little monster (who was promptly and understandably murdered by his grandfather) in the middle of Moscow.   But while even Vladimir Putin doesn’t encourage such things nowadays, we in Britain are moving towards the all-powerful state, on the excuse of combating terror.

As it happens, Lorna Moore had every reason to do her husband harm if she had wanted to. She went into the witness box (a dangerous thing for a guilty person to do) to say convincingly that she hates her husband, who was given to shoving her head down the lavatory.  To make the matter even more odd, the husband involved hasn’t actually been convicted of doing the thing his wife didn’t tell the police about.

Indeed, he has sent an email to British media saying he isn’t actually in Syria, but in Turkey. Are the rest of us truly free when people can be locked up for such things? I don’t feel so.

The Tyranny of Man

Assimilating to the Borg

On this blog we frequently decry both the beliefs and the practices of statism.  The threat of the creeping, growing power of the state is not idle.  It is real.  There are many reasons why the power of the state will always tend towards emergent tyranny.  To prevent this happening takes particular actions and structures: the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a constitution limiting the powers of the state and preserving the liberties of citizens, and so forth.  Above all it takes a deep, abiding belief in liberty throughout society.

The Christian faith provides a strong, principled framework to keep the state and its powers under control.  Firstly, Christ alone is ultimate; therefore the state is a servant--a mere servant, one might say--and its serves its Master, the Lord, to whom it and its agents will answer.  Secondly, our Lord has many other appointed servants beside the state, whose authority and responsibilities are also devolved from the Lord of glory.  These subordinate authorities are spread throughout human society.  His law is the fundamental law for all such authorities.  Limits are set on what is lawful, and what is not.  For example, the dominion and authority of parents over children is comprehensive, but not absolute.  No man or government is permitted to disregard the lawful, Christ appointed authority of parents.

Secular humanism provides no such principled framework to limit the ever-creeping powers of the state.  Rather, secular humanism ends up worshipping power and the state.  Because it does not recognise nor fear God, there is no higher authority than the humanist state which can, therefore, expropriate all property, cast into prison, and even take life. Who or what (in the end) can say to the humanist state, "What doest thou?"

As the West turns away from the Lord and His Christ, the illicit powers and oppression of the state grow by the day.  Below, blogger Patterico illustrates this relentless rapacity with just one prosaic example.

It Does Not Compute

The End of All Statist Ideologies

The Party denied the free will of the individual--and at the same time it exacted his willing self-sacrifice.  It denies his capacity to choose between two alternatives--and at the same time it demanded that he should constantly choose the right one.  It denied his power to distinguish good and evil--and at the same time it spoke pathetically of guilt and treachery.  The individual stood under the sign of economic fatality, a wheel in a clockwork which had been wound up for all eternity and could not be stopped or influenced--and the Party demanded that the wheel should revolt against the clockwork and change its course.

There was somewhere and error in the calculation; the equation did not work.

--Rubahsov, in prison, awaiting execution.  Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon 

(London: Arthur Koestler & Jonathan Cape Ltd,) p.240

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow (About Totalitolerance)

Curling Up Under the Blanket

By Douglas Wilson

Blog&Mablog

We live in a generation that is totalitarian in principle, having accepted all the basic totalitarian premises. Denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ drives you to those premises — for if Jesus is not Lord, then there is a vacancy that men will always want to fill. Without an exhaustive rule through the predestinating love of the Father, unbelieving men will always see a job opening. They will want to fill that gap. They mimic the Father’s omnipotence, which is where we get the totalitarian part. They also try to mimic His love, which is how we get the tolerance farce. And so it is that we find ourselves suffocating under this totalitolerance.


Examples pour in daily, but here is a fresh one. Gov. Brown of California has signed a bill requiring private pro-life counseling centers to distribute abortion information. Anyone who can look at the news without seeing how everything is coming to a grotesque and convulsive head is simply not paying attention.

Secularism is simply not capable of sustaining limited government.

Letter From the UK (About Statist Brainwashing)

British Secularist Values Regime Will Suppress Christianity

Consistent, faithful Muslims attempted to take over some state schools in Birmingham.  It was an infiltration plot, dubbed Trojan Horse, whereby school boards would be populated by faithful Muslims, who would then employ consistent Muslim teachers.  The curriculum and pedagogical methods (for example, classroom separation of boys and girls) would be adjusted to conform to true Islamic beliefs, teachings, and values.

The plot was exposed and the Trojan Horse was duly dragged outside the city walls whence it came.

The secularist, pagan British government decided that it had to police its schools more aggressively.  It had to clamp down, not on Islamic beliefs, but on "extremism".  How was "extremism" to be defined? you ask.  Anything taught in schools which did not conform to "British values".  And what, one asks, are British values?  Atheistic secularism, of course--similar to what is officially adhered to in Communist China.  

The upshot is that consistent, faithful Christian schools (and churches) are lumped in with consistent faithful Muslims--all alike are under the cosh because they teach values inconsistent with atheistic secularism.

Government Inspectors Could Monitor Sunday Schools And Choirs To Enforce ‘British Values’

Nick Hallett
Breitbart London

Government inspectors could monitor Sunday schools, church youth groups and even choirs to ensure they are teaching so-called “British values”, in a move Christians have dubbed “profoundly insulting”.