The latest: France and German Governments get Google to ban

Google excluding controversial sites

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET
October 23, 2002, 8:55 PM PT

Google, the world's most popular search engine, has quietly deleted more than 100 controversial sites from some search result listings.

Learn more about Google

Absent from Google's French and German listings are Web sites that are anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi or related to white supremacy, according to a new report from Harvard University's Berkman Center. Also banned is, a fundamentalist Christian site that is adamantly opposed to abortion.

Google confirmed on Wednesday that the sites had been removed from listings available at and The removed sites continue to appear in listings on the main site.

The Harvard report, prepared by law student Ben Edelman and assistant professor Jonathan Zittrain, and scheduled to be released Thursday, is the result of automated testing of Google's massive 2.5 billion-page index and a comparison of the results returned by different foreign-language versions. The duo found 113 excluded sites, most with racial overtones.

"To avoid legal liability, we remove sites from search results pages that may conflict with German law," said Google spokesman Nate Tyler. He indicated that each site that was delisted came after a specific complaint from a foreign government.

German law considers the publication of Holocaust denials and similar material as an incitement of racial and ethnic hatred, and therefore illegal. In the past, Germany has ordered Internet providers to block access to U.S. Web sites that post revisionist literature.

France has similar laws that allowed a students' antiracism group to successfully sue Yahoo in a Paris court for allowing Third Reich memorabilia and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to be sold on the company's auction sites. In November 2001, a U.S. judge ruled that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech protects Yahoo from liability.

Google's battles
The Harvard report comes as Google is becoming increasingly embroiled in international political disputes over copyright and censorship. China blocked access to Google last month.

Google was criticized in March for bowing to a demand from the Church of Scientology to delete critical sites from its index. In a response that won praise, Google replied by pledging to report future legal threats to the site run by law school clinics.

As Google has become the way more and more people find information on the Internet, it has also become an increasingly visible target for copyright complaints about cached information and allegedly infringing links.'s Google section lists 16 requests or legal threats the company has received in the past three months. One Google competitor and critic even suggested that the wildly popular search engine be transformed into a government-controlled "public utility."

Edelman, who created the program that tested URLs against Google's index, said he was investigating a tip about Google's German-language version.

"One concern that I've had for some time vis-a-vis filtering is that filtering is almost always secretive," Edelman said. "In the (library filtering) case, that meant you can't look at the list of blocked sites. In the Chinese government case, you can't see what sites are being blocked."

Edelman, who is a first-year law student, testified as an expert witness for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a court challenge to a law requiring libraries to install filtering software if they accept federal funds. He is also a plaintiff in a second lawsuit filed in June to eviscerate key portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Google's response
Google refused to reply to a list of questions that CNET sent via e-mail, including which sites have been delisted, how many sites have been delisted, what standards are used, and what other Google-operated sites have less-than-complete listings.

In an e-mail response, Google's Tyler said: "As a matter of company policy we do not provide specific details about why or when we removed any one particular site from our index. We occasionally receive notices from partners, users, government agencies and the like about sites in our index. We carefully consider any credible complaint on a case-by-case basis and take necessary action when needed. This is not pre-emptive--we only react to requests that come to avoid legal liability, we remove sites from Google search results pages that may conflict with local laws."

Tyler said an internal team involving lawyers, management and engineers makes the final decision on what to remove. "At Google we take these types of decisions very seriously," he said. "The objective is to limit legal exposure while continuing to deliver high quality search results that enable our users to find the information they need quickly and easily."

Tyler pointed to Google's terms of service agreement, which says Google will "consider on a case-by-case basis requests" to remove links from its index.

A moving target
Because Google has to keep track of a constantly moving target--new sites arguably illegal under French or German law appear every day--the search engine is encountering the same problems of overinclusiveness that traditional filtering software has experienced.

According to the Harvard report, some sites that Google does not list include, a "Chinese legal consultation network," and, a discount Web-hosting service and some conservative, anti-abortion religious sites. Those sites do not appear to violate either German or French laws.

Banned from and listings is, one of the Internet's most popular "white pride" sites. Stormfront features discussion areas, a library of white nationalist articles and essays by David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader.

"We've been dealing with this for quite a few years," said Don Black, who runs the site. "The German police agencies seem obsessed with Stormfront even though we're not focused on any German language material."

Black, who learned a few months ago that delisted Stormfront, says he doesn't hold it against the Mountain View, Calif.-based company. "Google is trying to conform to their outrageous laws," Black said. "So there's really nothing we can do about it. It's really a French and German issue rather than a Google issue."

The First Amendment
Because Google is a company and not a government agency, it has the right in general to delete listings from its service or alter the way they appear. (On Tuesday, however, CNET reported that an Oklahoma advertising company has sued Google over its position in search results.)

"Google may not only have the legal right to (delete listings), they may have the legal obligation to do it," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program, and a co-founder of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign.

"Over the long term, this will become a significant issue on the Net," Steinhardt said. "There's a wide variety of laws around the world prohibiting different forms of speech. You can imagine what the Chinese government prohibits versus what the French government prohibits versus what the U.S. government prohibits."

Edelman, of Harvard's Berkman Center, suggests that Google find a way to alert users that information is missing from their search results.

"If Google is prohibited from linking to Stormfront, they could include a listing but no link," Edelman said. "And if they can't even include a listing for Stormfront, they could at least report the fact that they've hidden results from the user. The core idea here is that there's no need to be secretive."

Sis. Tracy's response (email to the mailing list)

following email received 1-23-03--


I work on a computer at work and have internet access. I use the internet for purchasing, research, and updating in my department. I really like and attempted to access it. After typing in my firewall access code a screen came up stating:

Forbidden: Dyna B Locator : This site is forbidden because.(etc)..Hate & Descrimination.

I thought to myself, as well as sharing with others in my department, that the secualr computers have been programmed to be good "Roman Citizens". It is amazing...but the Lord's words ring true....They, the secular world, hate us....

Thanks for being an inspiration to so many people.... Peace in Jesus Christ Our Lord.....

(following email received 1-24-03)

I have to tell you things I forgot to tell on the last e-mail. I installed AOL in my computer just to try it, and I connected. I put a parental control, so evil sites would not enter my PC, for my surprise, I went to Jesus is Lord and it was BLOCKED (I don't know if you already knew), it was classified a 'Hate-filled Website' (I don't know why ! It doesn't say nothing against no one, it says Biblical content against deceits and modern witchcraft [mormonism, catholicism, etc.].

More information on the systematic banning (posted 2-10-03)

from this article, we see that the foreign governments are SUING search engines to violently force them to stop including certain websites (like this one).

                                 Can Europe Block Racist Websites from
                                 its Borders? 
                                 And If So, Will Hatemongers Seek the U.S.'s
                                 Technological Asylum? 
                                 By ANITA RAMASASTRY 
                                                        Wednesday, Feb. 05, 2003

                    Based on a treaty that went into effect last week, Europe is attempting to
                    shut out racist and xenophobic "hate" web sites. Meanwhile, a new contact
                    network "operating round the clock and seven days a week," is being set up
                    to provide European police forces with immediate assistance with their

                    The result of Europe's actions, however, may not be to shut down such sites.
                    Instead, the United States may become a haven for hatemongers' sites, due
                    to the strength of our First Amendment.

                    The Council of Europe's New Anti-Cyber-Hate Treaty Provision

                    The members of the Council of Europe (COE) are signatories to the 2001
                    Convention on Cybercrime - which was conceived to deal with Internet
                    crime such as virus attacks and website hacking. Just last week, 12 out of
                    44 of the COE's member States signed an additional protocol to the
                    Convention that has a very different purpose. 

                    The new protocol is motivated by the COE's desire to harmonize members'
                    domestic laws and bring together Europe in a cohesive fight against racism
                    and xenophobia on the Internet. The COE also wants to improve
                    international, or at least regional, cooperation with respect to the
                    investigation and prosecution of cyberspace hate speech. 

                    The Council argued, in its report on the new protocol, that it is a necessary
                    response to the fact that "[t]he emergence of international communication
                    networks like the Internet provide certain persons with modern and powerful
                    means to support racism and xenophobia and enables them to disseminate
                    easily and widely expressions containing such ideas."

                    The original COE Cybercrime treaty was also signed by a number of
                    non-COE states: the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and South Africa. These
                    states can choose to sign on to the protocol too, if they want. But the United
                    States, for one, is highly unlikely to do so - especially since the protocol,
                    which is both content-based and vague, conflicts with the First Amendment,
                    and would, if enforced, chill political speech.

                    The Specifics of the Protocol

                    The protocol broadens the treaty's scope to cover offenses relating to
                    distribution of racist or xenophobic propaganda via computer. According to a
                    COE statement, it will "eliminate racist websites from the internet and define
                    and criminalize hate-speech on computer networks." 

                    What counts as "racist" or "xenophobic" speech? The protocol reaches "any
                    written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories,
                    which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence,
                    against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent
                    or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of
                    these factors." 

                    It also requires signatory states to enact domestic laws, if they have not
                    already done so, criminalizing intentionally distributing, or "making
                    available" via computer such material - or, in addition, material which
                    denies, minimizes, approves of or justifies crimes genocide or crimes
                    against humanity. 

                    Reading such material, however, will not be criminalized, and the racist or
                    xenophobic character of the material, not just the distribution or availability,
                    must be intentional to count as a crime. That means Internet Service
                    Providers (ISPs) do not commit a crime if they merely serve as an unwitting
                    conduit or host for extremist material. 

                    What counts as "distributing" or "making available"? Even linking to banned
                    material may be criminal. And it is clear that "[e]xchanging racist and
                    xenophobic material in chat rooms, [or] posting similar messages in
                    newsgroups or discussion fora" would count. 

                    Strikingly, under the protocol, even password-protected "private" sites may
                    be criminal if the general public, or even a general class of persons, can
                    access them. Truly private communications - such as one-to-one emails -
                    however, are exempt from the protocol. 

                    The Advent of A U.S./Europe Cyberhate Divide

                    Besides reflecting a strong European stance against hate speech, the new
                    COE protocol may represent the first step in the "zoning" of cyberspace - in
                    which access to content may be restricted based on the user's citizenship
                    and domicile. Americans may be able to access content that Europeans no
                    longer can. 

                    How? European governments may even filter extremist material so that their
                    citizens cannot access it. Or ISPs may end up doing their job for them. As
                    noted above, ISPs are exempt from the protocol if they are unaware of hate
                    speech they unwittingly host. But what if a complaint brings such speech to
                    their attention? In that event, the prudent course for the ISP is to shut down
                    the site, whether or not it truly fits within the protocol, and wait to see if the
                    poster wins a court challenge. 

                    Most ISPs expressly retain the right to remove harmful or offending material
                    in their contracts with their customers, so for them deposting is the safest
                    course: The customer, due to the contract, has no recourse, and the ISP
                    then eliminates any risk. 

                    Even the prospect of possible civil liability for libel has convinced ISPs in
                    Britain and elsewhere in Europe to ban websites from their servers.
                    Certainly the risk of criminal liability will prove an even stronger incentive
                    for ISPs to depost. 

                    More Hate Sites Are Likely to Be Hosted - And Perhaps Also
                    Operated - in the U.S.

                    Web hosting for extremist sites may change somewhat, as well - as it is
                    driven out of Europe and into the U.S. 

                    According to the COE, the majority of hate websites seem to be U.S.-based
                    anyway. As part of its deliberations, the COE cited a report noting that 2,500
                    out of 4,000 racist sites were created in the United States. But in the wake
                    of the protocol, even more sites are likely to begin to use U.S. host servers,
                    rather than European ones. 

                    Some may also choose to move their operations and personnel to the U.S. -
                    a frightening thought for American who, while they respect the right to
                    speak, don't welcome an influx of hate-filled neighbors. 

                    The Yahoo! Case, and Why the Protocol May Raise the Same Issue

                    From the hate sites' perspective, it makes sense for them to move. U.S.
                    court decisions have strongly supported the First Amendment in cyberspace,
                    even when the speech is hateful - and have suggested that the U.S. has no
                    duty to enforce contrary European law. 

                    Last year, for instance, a U.S. federal district court judge ruled that Yahoo
                    did not have to block French citizens' access to online sales of Nazi
                    memorabilia, which are illegal in France. (In France, such sales violate a
                    criminal statute outlawing the exhibition of Nazi propaganda and artifacts for

                    The case arose because Yahoo!'s U.S. homepage included an auction site
                    that, in turn, included Nazi and Third Reich-related materials.French citizens
                    could access the materials directly through the U.S. site, or through a link on
                    the French Yahoo! site. As a result, a French court concluded that Yahoo!
                    was guilty of breaking the French law.

                    The French court accordingly issued an order requiring Yahoo! to take
                    measures to block French citizen's access to the U.S. site, with a penalty of
                    100,000 Euros for each day of non-compliance with the order. Yahoo!
                    partially complied, but felt that it did not have the necessarily technology to
                    fully comply. Accordingly, it sued in a California federal district court,
                    seeking a declaratory judgment against the enforcement of the French court
                    order on the ground that enforcement would violate the U.S. Constitution's
                    First Amendment. The court agreed. (An appeal is currently pending in the
                    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.) 

                    This principle established in the Yahoo! case may be put to the test again if
                    European authorities seek to apply the new protocol extraterritorially, to
                    sites based in the U.S. that are accessible in Europe. For example, what
                    happens when French of German law enforcement asks U.S. police officers
                    for information about extremists running a hate site in the U.S.?

                    The COE itself clearly believes that its protocol applies extraterritorially. The
                    protocol expressly makes cross-border communications of racist or
                    xenophobic material by foreign websites illegal. And the COE seems to
                    mean what it says. 

                    For instance, Ivar Tallo, an Estonian member of the COE Assembly,
                    expressed his belief that the protocol would, and should, reach a French
                    racist organization that, taking advantage of the First Amendment, had
                    established a U.S. website even though it meant to influence French, not a
                    U.S., audience. If the protocol were in place, Tallo commented, a racist
                    organization "would not be able to hide behind American laws protecting
                    freedom of speech." 

                    It may be up to U.S. courts to decide if Tallo is right - or if the Yahoo! judge,
                    who thought American free speech law ought to apply in America, and
                    European law in Europe, is correct. 

                    Or, alternatively, it may not be up to U.S. courts at all. Direct blocking by
                    European countries of communications from U.S. sites thought to violate the
                    protocol is also a possibility. Spain, for instance, recently passed legislation
                    authorizing Spanish judges to block access to foreign webpages that are a
                    threat to its national defense and public order.

                    The Strong Conflict Between U.S. and European Free Speech Law

                    Due to the striking difference between speech laws in the U.S. and Europe,
                    the option of adhering to both does not exist. Article 10 of the European
                    Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does recognize a right to freedom of
                    expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
                    impart information and ideas, and which covers even speech that offends,
                    shock or disturbs the State or any sector of the population. But Article 10's
                    right is far less broad that the right to free speech granted in the First

                    The European Court of Human Rights has held, for example, that a state's
                    actions to restrict the right to freedom of expression may be justified when
                    such ideas or expressions violated the rights of others. According, the ECHR
                    is not thought to conflict with a number of laws that would never pass
                    muster in the U.S., including laws in Spain, Germany and France outlawing
                    Internet "racism" and denial of the Holocaust, and a U.K. law outlawing
                    publication of material likely to incite racial hatred.

                    The depth of the contrast between U.S. and European law can be illustrated
                    by the case of Gerhard Lauck. Lauck publishes Nazi newspapers and a Nazi
                    Web site from Nebraska with impunity. The site is legal in the U.S., but it is
                    illegal in Germany, which has laws against Nazi propaganda that apply to
                    any website Germans can access, wherever it is located. (Jurisdiction over
                    even those sites outside Germany was upheld in a December 2000 German

                    While the U.S. may be horrified to become a haven for such
                    cyberhatemongers as Lauck, it can at least be proud of being a haven for
                    free speech at the same time. 

Internet filtering services
filter out
(thanks to HateWatch and/or others)

Keywords: internet filter, HateWatch, internet filters, hatewatch, Christian, HateWatch

...the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

The Lord Jesus Christ
--John 16:2-3

Gentle reader, this page may seem mixed up because there have been so many updates to it. HATEWATCH IS NOW OFF-LINE BUT WE ARE STILL BEING FILTERED.

Your site is filtered out in Cyber Patrol internet filter but if when in the program you click off "block intolerant sites" you can access it. (email received 5-5-01)
Well, well, well. I've finally confirmed that internet filters are now filtering our website. I believe all credit is due to HateWatch. Just thought I would let you know I found your site from a 1998 Hatewatch link. Thought your site was in the wrong group so I surfed on over. Very much enjoy!

In His service, D

Here is the latest update. I received this email on 12-22-2000--
Dear Tracy, Just wanted to let you know that today at work on the school's computer, I tried to get on just as I've always done the past 2 years here and this came up:

Status: 403 Forbidden Description: Organizational policies prohibit access to this page Note: If necessary please contact your systems Administrator for resolution

At first I wasn't sure if our computer was just messing up, but seems like as of today, I won't be able to look at your webpage on the school district's comptuter.

In this article, there is a section entitled, "Background". As you can now see, my assessment was correct. A brother mentioned they couldn't find us on Hatewatch any more--but I said,

I'll bet they still put it [] on those block lists

I've known almost since the beginning of this website that it would not be on-line forever. King Jesus said, "Work while it is day, for the night cometh when NO MAN can work." The time is quickly coming, praise the Lord and amen. Those that know their God will be STRONG and do EXPLOITS. And those that have understanding among the people shall instruct many though they fall by the sword and by flame and by captivity many days. I'm happy to be part of that holy lot. Praise the Lord and amen. These things must needs come to pass until that Great and Terrible Day of the LORD come. Thank God for the word. It lays it all out.

You can go see us at the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Cyberwatch Taskforce Against Hate even though I love the Jewish people. King Jesus came here as a Jew, the son of David. Yet, we are liberally mentioned in this spech entitled, "The Inverted Image: Antisemitism and Anti-Catholicism on the Internet" by Mark Weitzman of The Simon Wiesenthal Center. It was apparently delivered at

The Fifth Biennial Conference On Christianity and the Holocaust
Sponsored by The Julius and Dorothy Koppelman Holocaust/Genocide Resource Center and the Campus Ministry at Rider University
Christianity and Judaism:
History, The Holocaust and Reconciliation in The Third Millennium
October 18-19, 1998


This website,, has been on HateWatch since January of 1998. WARNING: KIDS, DO NOT GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK! If you want to know what is there, ask your parents to tell you. There is cussing and blasphemy by the other groups on this page. For adults that wish to verify that we are on HateWatch's anti-Christian list, you can go look for yourself at HateWatch.

updated Hold up! One of our readers, Jim, said, "Just wanted to let you know that I went to the HateWatch site and didn't see your site listed. I followed the link you gave, but didn't see it. Have they reorganized their list?"

I said to Jim, "Well, well, well!!!!! I just saw it on there a week ago and it's been there for over a year. At least one of our readers recently wrote them and I figure a whole lot more have also written and they [HateWatch] took it down [thanks to my brothers and sisters who've come to our defense over the past year. I love you in Christ. Jesus knows who you are.]-- but I'll bet they still put it on those block lists. People have been writing them for a year to take it off and now it is "poof!" gone. I hope I saved a copy of when it was on there. [I didn't] THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION! I'll look and see if they put it elsewhere. [I didn't see it]"

Then I wrote an e-mail to HateWatch today (June 16, 1999),

Dear Sirs:

Our website ( has been on HateWatch for over a year (first listed January of 1998) and now I see it has been removed. Can you please tell me:

1. Are we still being put on blocklists through your cooperative agreements?
2. Why did your group finally take us off?

Thank you in advance for your attention and response.

Yours truly,

I'll be surprised if I get an answer. So many HateWatch wanna-be's have taken our name from their listing I can only assume we'll continue to be blocked on many filters--and there is no guarantee that HateWatch has taken us off of their master list. Just because I can't see it on the 'net does not mean it's not there anymore.

With this information in mind, please read on. The following information was written while we were still on the above link...

Yes, we've been on HateWatch's ANTI-CHRISTIAN section with Satanists for over a year now [June 1999]. HateWatch even got our title right, "Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God"...Mmmmm. I don't typically use the word "stupid" but I'm almost tempted to in this case. They put Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God under the ANTI-CHRISTIAN section. I could probably sue HateWatch for taking a factual statement out of context, but I'm not interested in their silly games. This site speaks for itself--Jesus Christ is the Lord and every one that does not worship Him in accordance with His word is going to hell. HateWatch won't change that fact.

As a result of our listing on HateWatch (and other hate lists), a number of KKK-type people have contacted me. Some have even made links to this website. They think that since we're on HateWatch we're one of them. THAT IS A LIE. I am a Black person!

On the positive side, a lot of people have found our site through HateWatch--and a number of them were happy to find us--

Aside:   Telling the truth is not the easy thing to do. It is easier to go with the flow and let people die in their sins--but that is not love. That is HATE. To know somebody is going to the lake of fire and not alert them is HATE. All we want to do is tell people the truth so that they can get saved.

But why are you being filtered?

When I went to HateWatch last year, I noticed that they had a cooperative agreement with an internet filter. I even checked to see if we were filtered through that particular service. At the time we weren't, but I've since gotten confirmation that we are filtered in probably dozens of internet filters. About two weeks ago, someone said to me, "Why can't I get your site at work? We can get porno." I suspected we were being filtered, but the confirmation just came today.

One of our readers said,

Dear Tracy,

I have just suscribed to a internet filter service called and went to go to your site and found my access denied by the filter service. The filter service was recommended by David Cloud, and is supposed to be run by an unaffiliated (independent) Baptist. ...I am reasonably assured it cannot be for doctrinal reasons. I also know it cannot be for the information about Wicca as I went to and the filter let me through. So now I am curious as to why I cannot access the site.

In Christ,

As a result of this e-mail, I wrote to and asked why I was blocked--

Dear Friends:

One of my readers says that we've been filtered on your service and he asked me why. I know that lots of folks hate us, but I don't know of any Bible believing Christians that do. I attend an independent Baptist church. Please review the site and let me know, if you don't mind. If you were a secular group I would not be writing you about this. Our address:

for Jesus' sake,
Ezek 2:4, 6

This is what said to me--

I've been to your site.
I know exactly why you are being blocked.

You speak against other religions as if you have some infallible truth on your side. You speak as though something or someone has told you to do so and given you the authority to do it.
In your eyes, Evolutionists are wrong
Catholics are cultists.
Wicca is witchcraft.
The New Age of enlightenment is Satan worship.
Buddhism is wrong
Paganism is mumbo-jumbo

Not only that but you then offer tools to wage war on those that believe differently than you and call them Witnessing tools.

And finally, you hold the King James 1611 Bible as the best translation, even though all the great theological minds of the day say different.

You have been unblocked.
God bless you for your stand.
Are there any other url's that you use.
I want to be sure to unblock them all.

Some liberal must have put you in the block list.

Don't be a stranger. Any thing you need, in any way I can be a help, Email me.

Praise God for a company standing on the Book! According to their home page if you only need filtering, it is $4 per month. If you need a filter service and still want to get, go to They are standing on the Book. [4-23-02 a reader recommended a free filter found at out. ]

The Breakdown

The world hates the Bible believer! Jesus said in Matthew 10:22

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake…

They hate the gospel message so much that they attempt censor it. I say "attempt" because the word of God cannot be bound. These are the same people who cry, "No censorship!" A pack of hypocrital wild dogs. They think they bind me by putting me on these filters but I confidently say with the Apostle Paul—

…Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is NOT bound.

Every wicked person that attempts to block the word of God WILL give account. The day is coming when all the accounts will be settled. I will not lose any sleep and I will not be worried because you see,

God ain't worried.
God ain't pressed.
and God ain't pleased.

...Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

For the wicked

I don't typically address you folks directly 'cause I don't war against flesh and blood. I war against your daddy, the devil. But this I say to the wicked man that reads this--

You may seem to prosper now. You may even feel a little smug. But friend, I wanna take you to a place where—
  • the lights are out.
  • there's nobody's around,
  • there's deadly silence.
  • you're feeling a little uneasy as your seared conscience makes you a little scared of the night terrors; and,
  • the hound of hell gives you no peace—

When this time comes, don't turn on the hell-i-vision to drown out the fear. Don't take a drink of liquor to numb your already dull senses. Don't call your whoremonger to divert your mind. Don't turn on your favorite unholy-wood movie. Don't go water your vegetables or read your favorite author. Just take some time to think about how you hate those that love the Lord Jesus. And think about the coming Judgment when you will bow down to Jesus Christ for sentencing. Jesus said,

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it MUST needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

You don't have to remain frightened and uneasy. You can get saved and you can get the power of God on your life. But if you refuse and rebel, the wrath of God will continue to follow you every moment of your life. You may refuse to bow the knee now, BUT YOU WILL BOW THE KNEE TO JESUS CHRIST--

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

You WILL bow down...real low.

The internet is not the only ministry that we have. Me and my brothers and sisters all over the world are sharing the gospel in season and out of season--and lives are being changed. You cannot stop God. No use even getting excited when you seem to win a little victory. It ain't a victory, it is a witness AGAINST you, friend. Even when this ol' stammering tongue lies silent in the grave, the saints of God will CONTINUE to overcome by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. Just thought you needed to know.

For my beloved brothers and sisters.

The day is darker than you may think. If there are files on this site that you want, save them now. I am working on a downloadable zip file so that you can save the whole site in one step. I have no intentions of taking down the site, but as we all know, the night cometh when no man can work...

Last year somebody directed me to the United Nation's Interpol (international police) site where they had a list of five (5) hate lists. was on two of them. For those of you who don't have your minds made up, you will fall down like a house of cards when tribulation comes. Jesus Christ is the Lord! Do you hear me? JESUS Christ is the Lord! Do not fear what a weak, devil worshipping, wicked man may do to you. The wicked got his day coming. I ain't scared and I ain't backin' down. Stand up for the Lord--HE IS THE ONE YOU SHOULD FEAR.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

...The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Hebrews 13:6

They'll have to drag me outta here before I'll take this website down. I won't be the first or the last to go to jail or get killed. Make up your mind NOW. Don't wait until tribulation comes, it'll be too late then. Walk with the Lord NOW. Don't wait until tribulation comes. If you do, you'll be so scared, Jesus will be the last person on your mind. You'll give up without a fight. You'll give in to the devil with no resistance. Make Jesus first NOW and He will remain in that place--FIRST--which is where He outta be in your life. The Bible says we are soldiers. Know your weapon--the word of God. Walk holy and you'll be filled with the power of God.

I have not shared with you all that is going on, but until my last breath, I will testify in the name of the Lord Jesus. Take the information and use it!

for Jesus' sake,
a sold-out sister.

Just got this e-mail on 5-30-99,

Wow, Lots of information here at this site. I actually found it when I was following links that someone had put up under a site called "Stop the Hate". Apparently you get listed if you are Anti-anything. Although I did not see any listed like Anti-Pedophile.

Anyway I will have to return to do some more reading.