Thursday, October 10, 2019


OCTOBER 10, 2019
Trump Campaign, city of Minneapolis still split on additional fees associated with rally
Pres. Trump: I stand with the great police officers of Minneapolis
Minneapolis Police Officers Create Shirts to Wear to Trump Rally After Mayor Bans Uniforms


Anne Graham Lotz: Jesus in Me | The Eric Metaxas Radio Show 
Anne Graham Lotz Not recommended. While the core of Anne Graham Lotz’s teaching isn’t radically off base, biblically, (i.e. she’s not blatantly teaching Word of Faith, NAR, or other heretical doctrine) there are too many red flags about her teaching and behavior to regard her as a trustworthy teacher of God’s word. She has no qualms about preaching to men. False teachers Rick Warren and Beth Moore have each written forewords for Anne’s books. Anne has poor hermeneuticsHere, she completely ignores the context of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and claims it as a promise for America. Here, while correctly stating several times that God speaks through His word, she also seems to teach extra-biblical revelation by saying we can mistake other people’s voices for the voice of God and continually using the phrase “listening for God’s voice.” Anne endorses unbiblical “circle-making” prayer, and she is beginning to dabble in NAR-esque prophesying. Click here for more information on Anne Graham Lotz.

LOTZ … Of Nonsense

I’m going to go out on a limb and state that Anne Graham Lotz is not someone Christian women can trust to teach them the Bible, as she has demonstrated that she does not rightly handle the Word of Truth. (2 Tim. 2:15)  My saying this will surely upset women who believe that Anne’s a solid Bible teacher simply because she’s Billy Graham’s daughter and Franklin’s sister.  Bud Ahlheim of Pulpit & Pen offers many reasons for not taking her teaching seriously.
But before I get to that, for those who are unaware of –or doubt–Mrs. Lotz’s decline into “hermeneutical roadkill,” I’ve provided several articles at the bottom of the page that make it clear that the path she’s on is decidedly unbiblical.
Now to Bud Ahlheim’s blog post:
While discernment is a mandated chore for every Christian, one that can only be finely honed by the Spirit-illuminated study of Scripture, sometimes it doesn’t take a whole bunch of that skill to recognize the smell of hermeneutical roadkill that’s trying to be passed off as spiritual barbecue.
Such is the case with Anne Graham Lotz. That she has parlayed her father’s almost hallowed name within evangelicalism into what some see as a reputable “ministry” is probably no surprise, especially when viewed from a, shall we say, more pragmatic fiscal perspective. That hers is a “reputable” ministry, one “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) is another matter altogether. Then, of course, there’s the even more fundamental question, “Should SHE even be doing this?” (1 Timothy 2:12)
In any case, Lotz has a nifty name for her endeavor that, no doubt for her, is imbued with significant spiritual meaning – AnGeL Ministries. You’ll note, in what can only be seen, perhaps, as divine providence, that the word “angel” is built around her monogram. Neat-o, huh?
Lotz, though, has a substantial history of “imbuing” things with spiritual meaning that, most often, represent bonafide violence to both the text and tenor of Scripture. She ought to imbue less, methinks, and abide more in the Word.
From Lassoing Baptists With Wiccan Prayer Circles by promoting a Jewish Mystic to now emphasizing a prophetic “word from the Lord” about the woeful spiritual condition of America, Lotz has made herself into a modern-day prophetess.
From her own website, Lotz, in April 2015, advised her followers that, as a result of studying the Book of Joel, and because “the messages almost made the hair stand up on the back of my neck,” (always a valid hermeneutic) she was certain Jesus “is soon to return to take all His followers to heaven.” You may ask how she knows this. “Because God was clearly warning that His judgment is coming on America and on our world, and it’s going to be ugly. I knew it then, and I know it now.”  (God was, you understand, talking about America back there in the days of Joel.  Try to keep up, okay?)
Okay, well, hmmm. Yes, we are told, by Jesus, no less, to be ready. “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36)  Well, Lotz didn’t prophesy a date and time, so maybe she’s in the clear on this one.
But, “it’s going to be ugly?” Sadly, for many people, the righteous wrath of God as He judges sin will be ugly. It will be ugly, terminal, and eternal. But not for believers, since we tend to believe that we have been justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Any warnings of ugliness should be to motivate us to “preach the Gospel,” not shudder in fear of a judgment for which Christ has paid our ransom.
Lotz points out the ugliness in her 2015 blog because she wanted to offer “a prayer I have written personally for each of the 9 days,” … “for those who sign up.” The “9 days” are the dates she identifies as May 15 – May 23, the days “between the Day of the Ascension of Jesus and the Day of Pentecost.” You see, those have “traditionally been days of prayer and fasting for an outpouring of God’s Spirit.” Oh, yeah, sure.
(Insert sound of annoying discernment tocsin here … again.)
Most believers understand the Pentecost event from Acts 2. What most tend to disregard is that this event was not the only “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” recorded in Acts. Similar events occurred with each of the geographic people groups Christ included in Acts 1:8. An outpouring occurred in Jerusalem and Judea with Jewish believers. (See Acts 2) It also occurred for the Samaritans and “God fearers.” (See Acts 8:14-17Acts 10:44-48Acts 11:13). Finally, it came to the Gentiles, notably under the ministry of the Apostle Paul. (See Acts 19:1-7)  Plus, that last outpouring?  Yeah, it was the last outpouring.  Not something happening in our day.  Continue reading

Open Letter to Anne Graham Lotz Regarding The Circle Maker

EXCERPT: "You have been given much Anne; thus your accountability before Jesus is far greater than the hundreds, probably thousands, who are going to read what you said about “The Circle Maker” and say to themselves, well, if Anne Graham Lotz believes and endorses and practices what the circle maker says, then it must be okay. BUT IT ISN’T. Thus, you have now become a stumbling block and not a stepping stone to all who will follow your lead."

Anne Graham Lotz Promotes Jewish Mystic

EXCERPTS: "This issue with Lotz’s email should be clear to discerning Christians. In a similar fashion to those of the Word-Faith Movement, Lotz has said that we need to pray like Honi. The way Honi prayed was not how a humble, worshipful Christian should be expected to pray. Honi, who treated God as his personal cosmic butler, is not a man who should be held up as an example to be imitated."
"Lotz’s email, in a way similar to Batterson’s book “The Circle Maker”, promotes a mystic practice that misunderstands both the nature of  God and of prayer. Christians need not draw a circle (physical, mental, or spiritual; literal or metaphorical) around any nation to pray for it . Furthermore, Christians should not be presumed to present God with ultimatums."
"Those subscribed to Anne Graham Lotz’s mailing list should rethink the wisdom of their subscription.  It is prudent for Christians to keep one degree of separation between themselves and heretics." 

Lotz-a-palooza: God Circle-Prayed The Creation?

EXCERPTS: "A woman who embraces the heresy of circle praying, itself borne out of Wiccan witchcraft, will be taking the helm of the National Day Of Prayer Task Force.
Pandering to the discernment-free and Scripture-disregarding, ecumenical efforts of the modern evangelical church, the false teacher Anne Graham Lotz will presumably be drawing circles around the entire nation as she mystically leads it to pray for “repentance, revival, and a recommitment to serious prayer.”"
"Anyone familiar with Lotz’s less-than-orthodox practices (She gives “prophetic” words, too, FYI) may herein recognize yet further departure from God’s Word by the larger “evangelical” church.  As we know, the enemy may disguise himself as an “angel of light,” this time perhaps via Lotz’s self-monikered, anagrammatic AnGel Ministries. “God has called me to be a messenger. I have used my initials, AGL, to name my non-profit ministry AnGeL Ministries because in Scripture angels are God’s messengers.”" Instead of a logical and literal interpretation, Lotz suggests an esoteric meaning.  She is stating that prayer was God’s mechanism for the creation of the world.  HUH?  Did God draw a circle around nothingness and ask for the world to be made?  Is she claiming that God prayed to God for the creation of the world and that God answered God by doing it? (Here, friends, is an example of eisegetical violence being done to Scripture.)


The Daniel Prayer_2.indd
EXCERPTS: "Released on May 10, 2016 Anne Graham Lotz’s latest book is sure to make its mark in the “Christian” publishing market.  The reasons for this are twofold.  The book is authored by someone with the evangelically hallowed name of “Graham,” which itself is enough cause to prompt the Biblically-astute to cast a discerning eye.  Secondly, in the world of “Christian” publishing, false “prophets” create genuine profits."
"The Daniel Prayer is a mess, and a dangerous mess, at that.  Lacking any pervasive Scriptural logic, unless contemplative, egocentric mysticism counts, the tome seems borne mostly out of an overly mystical, decidedly anthropocentric form of American Christian theology, with the emphasis being on “America,” not “Christian.”  That such a system could be even considered “theological” is erroneous since it gives mere lip service, not strict adherence, to Scripture, elevates man’s desires far above the plans of God, and promotes its tenets with the underlying theme that America is the new Israel.  Lotz perpetuates this fallacious theology throughout the text. The subtitle of the book, Prayer That Moves Heaven And Changes Nations, highlights an apparent denial of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God that remains consistent throughout the book. 
America is losing favor with God, according to Lotz, and that calls for the Daniel prayer.  She proceeds to excise this prayer from the historical narrative of Scripture and promote its modern incantation as a miracle fix for the woes of America.
Lotz lauds herself for everything from choosing God, to knowing Scripture, to using prayer successfully, to getting messages, and “messengers,” from God, to understanding prophetic messages from the news. 
Soteriologically, Lotz denies faith is a gift from God."

Anne Graham Lotz
Has Lots of False Doctrine

EXCERPTS: "Obviously, the claim is that Mrs. Lotz is "proclaiming the word of God." We hope you will see, this is a lie. She is a false teacher who follows in the footsteps of her broad way father, Billy Graham."
"Instead of disagreeing with Phillips, Lotz agreed and stated that the Pope "believed in Jesus," "believed in the Scriptures," was "a great leader," was "a man of character," and she respected him "as a person, a leader." She applauded his ecumenism "to bridge the gaps between Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Catholics," and called it "a wonderful thing." She said,
And I think the Pope was someone who found God's calling in his life, and he fulfilled what he believed was God's purpose for him. (, hard copy on file)"
 "But then, in her next paragraph she lied against the true gospel of God (e.g. Romans 3:11) and stated the wicked are seeking Christ."
JESUS IN ME: Who is the Holy Spirit?
JESUS IN ME: Power to Change You and Me
JESUS IN ME: Not By Yourself
Giving My Life to Jesus and Asking Jesus 
Into My Heart
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Oftentimes an individual tells me, “I have given my life to Jesus,” or “I have invited Jesus into my heart.”  I have no doubt that some people who describe their salvation in these terms are genuinely saved, but these are not biblical descriptions of salvation and I am convinced that to use such terminology is not a harmless matter. To “give my life to Christ” or to merely “invite Jesus into my heart” gives the wrong idea, in fact.  TO “GIVE MY LIFE TO CHRIST” implies that I have something good or worthwhile to offer to Him and that there is something good in me that God would accept, which is definitely not true. “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). The Bible says that even our supposed righteousness is unacceptable before a thrice holy God: “... we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).  TO “INVITE JESUS INTO MY HEART” is not the same as acknowledging my wicked sin and my frightful unsaved condition and putting my trust in what Jesus Christ has done on the cross for me as the only means of salvation. To “invite Jesus into my heart” implies that my heart is not the filthy thing that the Bible says that it is. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9). It is true that the Bible says Jesus Christ comes into the life of the believer. In 2 Cor. 6:16God says, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them,” but this is only after the individual is redeemed and cleansed and sanctified by faith in Christ’s atonement.  The term “invite Jesus into my heart” is usually based on Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” First of all, this is not an invitation to an individual but to a church. See verse 19. “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Jesus is graciously knocking on the door of the wayward church and inviting individuals to respond to His rebuke by repenting of their apostate condition. I do not doubt that there is an application of this verse that extends to Christ’s blessed invitation to individual sinners, but we know that one verse cannot contradict everything else the New Testament says about salvation.  To tell the sinner merely to receive Jesus into his or her heart gives the wrong idea UNLESS we carefully explain about his sinful condition and God’s judgment of sin (Rom. 1:18 - 3:18) and Jesus’ sacrifice for sin (Rom. 3:19-24). This is the true Roman’s Road plan of salvation.  The gospel is not inviting Jesus into my heart; it is summarized as follows by the Lord’s apostle: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 20 as repenting of my sin and self-will, which means to surrender to God, and putting my faith in Jesus Christ as my sin bearer. This is the message that Paul preached. “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).  Biblical salvation is described in Romans 10 in terms of believing in the heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Biblical salvation is described in John 3 in terms of being born again by putting my faith in what Jesus did when He was lifted up on the cross (John 3:314-16).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 4 in terms of believing in Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Saviour (Acts 4:10-12).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 8 in terms of believing with all one’s heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He paid the sacrifice that was demanded by God’s law and that is described in Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:26-27). There are many other descriptions of salvation in the New Testament, but nowhere is salvation described as “giving my life to Jesus” or merely “inviting Jesus into my heart.” We need to be very careful about salvation, because nothing in this life is more important than finding the right way of salvation and the Bible warns that there are false gospels and false christs and false spirits (2 Cor. 11:1-4).  We are saved by believing from the heart “that form of doctrine which was delivered” to us, which refers to the doctrinal content of the biblical Gospel. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17).  Shallow presentations of the gospel can become “another gospel” if the individual is left with a wrong concept of what it means to be saved. It is instructive that many of those who are victims of the “Quick Prayerism” method of evangelism and who have merely prayed a sinner’s prayer but do not show any evidence of regeneration describe their salvation in the aforementioned terms. ___________________________ SOME RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE: ”I agree completely. Most of us have probably been guilty of repeating terminology we have heard, even if it is not biblically sound, including these phrases. However, I think it is important to use the language of the Bible. These two phrases are not descriptive of Bible salvation, reflect a shallow understanding and presentation of the gospel, and could easily deceive someone about the true nature of repentance and faith” (Thomas Smith, Pastor, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, St. Clair, Missouri).  “I think this is a subject that needs to be dealt with frequently. Tozer pointed out many years ago that ‘accepting Jesus into my heart’ is not biblical terminology, and that ‘receiving Christ’ (John 1:11,12) conveys a much more serious truth” (Buddy Smith, Pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Malanda, Queensland, Australia). “The whole message of ‘ask into the heart’ is very recent in the history of the Lord’s churches. It looks to me like Baptists accepted it from evangelicals of other denominations. It was not the preaching of the old Baptists. There are several songs along the same line as this also. Sadly, it seems that a lot of people get their doctrine from their songs instead of getting their songs from their doctrine. Is there a sense in which the Lord dwells in our hearts? In light of Gal. 4:6 and Eph. 3:17 the answer is yes, but we still are never commanded to preach ‘Ask Him into your heart,’ nor do we see the Gospel heralds in the New Testament preaching that. When I preached on this recently, the immediate reaction of one man who has been saved for years was, ‘This sounds like borderline heresy,’ simply because he had always heard this, even in his years at BJU, other sound churches, etc. When I opened the Word and we looked together he agreed that what I preached was Biblical. My dad has been preaching for years that we are not telling people to ask Jesus into their life or give their life to Jesus. Their life is wrong; it is a mess; it is wicked. We are preaching that sinners need ‘new life in Christ’” (Bobby Mitchell, Jr., Pastor, Mid-Coast Baptist Church, Brunswick, Maine). “I think the reason for the problem terms you mention (‘I have invited Jesus into my heart,’ etc.) grow out of a shallow or weak presentation of the Gospel. If the lost person would be led to see himself as the wicked & lost hell bound sinner the Word of God says he is and that he is under the wrath & condemnation of a Holy God, he would recognize that there is not one ounce of good in him. If the purpose of ‘The suffering Lamb of God’ on the cross would be plainly preached and the lost sinner would be made to see the great sacrifice of the Christ -- as He bleeds and dies, as He is making the Atonement in His blood sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, as He is suffering the wrath of God poured out on Him, as He bears the sins of all mankind, as He is personally bearing the sins of the sinner who is being witnessed to. And if the Holy Spirit would then convict this sinner of the desperately wicked condition of his own heart and life and he would then see his hopeless, worthless position outside of God’s grace, surely he would repent of his sins and be saved. At this point it would seem like the only words the lost sinner would then be able to utter would be ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner.’ Seeing God’s great love for lost sinners in Christ on the cross and being convicted by the Holy Spirit would surely produce believing faith in the finished work of Christ for the salvation of the soul” (Wilbert Unger, Pastor, Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario).


In this special simulcast with Crowdsource the Truth, Larry Klayman clarifies the Senate's responsibility and upsetting shortfall as Adam Schiff and others continue to push their latest hoax in the ongoing effort to unseat President Donald Trump. Visit Visit:
  Trump DEFIES Impeachment Circus and Tells Democrats to SHOVE IT!!!

Manufactured Impeachment Treachery


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Calling out inept, traitorous, and corrupt politicians among Europe's ruling class online is officially banned, worldwide. After usurping authority over the peoples and nations of Europe, a European Union court just ruled that U.S.-based social-media companies must comply with anti-free speech decrees by European authorities. Under the ruling handed down by the so-called European Court of Justice last week, judges made clear that the criticism of a fringe political figure must be censored all over the world — not just inside the EU or in the specific nation where authorities consider the speech illegal. Critics called the move Orwellian and crazy.
The case in question involved Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a far-left Austrian politician with the totalitarian Green Party who was ridiculed on Facebook by her critics. Among other criticism, she was referred to online as a “corrupt oaf” and a “lousy traitor of the people” for her extreme political views. Obviously these were the opinions of the authors. Another critic blasted her Green Party for being a “fascist” political party. Apparently Europeans thought her demands for never-ending tax-funded welfare payments for refugees were ridiculous, among other positions. But expressing that opinion publicly is now illegal, worldwide, under the ruling from the Luxembourg-based court.
Glawischnig-Piesczek filed a complaint in Austria's courts, alleging that the opinions expressed by her critics were “defamatory.” Facebook complied with a court order to remove the criticism. However, the social-media giant, which has developed a global reputation for its hostility to free speech and support for left-wing politics, only censored the offending views within Austria. That was not enough for Glawischnig-Piesczek — she did not want anyone, anywhere on the planet to be able to read what people thought about her, or to post anything similar. So she appealed. After winding its way through that nation's legal system, the Austrian Supreme Court asked the European Court of Justice to take up the case.
Oral arguments were heard in February. And last week, the ECJ, as the court is known, ruled that if speech is ruled illegal in one EU member state, then technology companies must censor it all over the world. The ruling also noted that duplicate or identical content posted in other countries must be removed, too. That means, for instance, that certain Eastern European governments still largely under the control of “former” communist tyrants will now be able to censor their critics and prevent foreigners from learning the truth. Even Americans may be banned from posting it. Companies will not be held liable, though, as long as they delete the content or “equivalent” opinions “expeditiously” upon being ordered to do so.
In a statement issued on behalf of the EU's top court, the judges said that under the ruling, EU member states were free to order Internet companies to censor “information [deemed unlawful] worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law.” EU member governments are supposed to take that international “law” into “account” when ordering companies to block access to the material. Officially, there is no way to “appeal” the EU court's ruling, although it is not clear how the outfit may be able to enforce its rulings on the U.S.-based firms.
In an incredibly Orwellian response, the radical politician claimed the ruling was “a historic success for human rights against web giants.” As analysts pointed out, though, real rights include the right to hold and express an opinion about politicians. On the other hand, there is no right for politicians or anyone else not to be offended. Meanwhile, the victory was not against “web giants,” but against everyday citizens seeking to express their opinions about a Green politician working to rule them and hand their hard-earned money to foreigners.
The claim that the ruling against free speech was somehow a victory for “human rights,” though, does contain truth if one uses the "international" definition of human rights. Unlike in America, where the Founding Fathers said it was a self-evident truth that God created people with certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property, and so on) and that government is instituted to protect those rights, under the human rights vision advanced by the United Nations and the EU, there are no God-given rights, or any rights at all, actually. As the UN explains in Article 29, your “rights” may in “no case be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
So in a twisted sort of way, global censorship of political tyrants is actually a “historic success for human rights,” as Glawischnig-Piesczek put it. As the UN has made clear for years, it considers the unalienable rights guaranteed to Americans under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions — free speech, self-defense, gun rights, due process, and more — to be violations of the UN's “international human rights law.” Even laws restricting the killing of unborn babies have been attacked by the UN as a “violation” of “human rights.” So it is no surprise to see totalitarians claim that censorship of political discourse is also needed for “human rights.”
In a bit of unintended irony, a U.K.-based free speech group named “Article 19” — a reference to the UN's “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and its article on free expression — slammed the controversial ruling. “This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” Article 19 Executive Director Thomas Hughes was quoted as saying in the media, with legal analysts quoted in various press reports noting that the ECJ ruling would apply in the United Kingdom, despite Brexit.
“Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online,” continued Hughes. “The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters. The ruling also means that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”
In a statement after the ruling, Facebook expressed concerns. “It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country,” the company complained. The judgment also raises questions about free expression and “the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.” During a meeting with employees after the decision was handed down, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg reportedly said: “I think it’s a very troubling precedent to set.”
Of course, as regular readers of this magazine know well, the Big Tech social-media giants — especially Facebook — hardly needed to be coerced into helping globalists and totalitarians censor the Internet. In fact, the U.S.-based technology giants willingly joined hands with both Brussels and the UN to squelch voices they disagreed with. As The New American reported in June of 2016, the Big Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), Microsoft, and more signed on to the EU's “Code of Conduct” promising to censor everything from criticism of Islam and concerns about mass migration to support for marriage and biological reality on gender. Just last month, the technology companies joined with the UN to censor “extremism” online.
The EU court's action is not the beginning of censorship by that entity; it is merely an escalation. Before that, in 2015, the EU's police agency vowed to combat “online propaganda” and “extremism” online. More recently, in November of 2018, under the guise of promoting “tolerance,” the EU's Parliament passed a resolution demanding that critics of homosexuality, gender confusion, Islam, open borders, and more be prosecuted. “The right to freedom of speech is not absolute,” the EU resolution reads, repeatedly blasting “right-wing extremism” without any reference to left-wing extremism, communism, jihad, anti-Christian persecution, or any of the real threats facing Europe today.
The EU has long been seeking to impose its totalitarian schemes on the once-independent, formerly self-governing peoples of Europe — even against their will, as it showed when it forced the European Constitution on France and Holland despite both nations voting "no." The totalitarian super-state has also been imposing its decrees on non-members such as Switzerland, which was recently coerced into adopting EU demands on gun control. Now, the EU wants to impose its rule on all of humanity. If liberties as fundamental as free speech are not safe, nothing is. It is time for Europeans and Americans and people everywhere to draw a line in the sand.
Related articles: