Never before have I walked into a church to be greeted by a barrier of armed police with metal detector wands. Nor have I had to let officers open my purse to search for weapons before I could enter a sanctuary—that is, until now.

That was when Geert Wilders came to speak at Cornerstone Church in Nashville, Tennessee. He came to warn America, to warn Christians. He came to wake up the Bible Belt to the threat of Islam. But before a single word was spoken, these ominous signs foreshadowed the truth of what was yet to come.

Geert Wilders is not a president, royalty, or anyone most of us would recognize on the street. And yet, as he took the podium to a loud applause and standing ovation, Wilders stood flanked with security constantly scanning the crowd, reminiscent of our own presidential secret service.

Why all the fuss for a representative from the Netherlands—a politician? Because he is a rare and endangered species; he is willing to speak the truth about what is happening in Europe. He refuses to submit to Islam or be bound and gagged by the power of the politically correct.

For this, he is facing a 16-month jail sentence by his own government for the high crime of “hate-speech.” Even more profound is that he is the constant target for assassination from the “misunderstanders of Islam.”

Wilders opened by telling the crowd he was happy to be there — happy to be able to speak freely, without the fear of being carted off to jail once he stepped out of the door. A concept hard for us here in the U.S. to grasp, but it is the stark reality of Europeans today.

He came with a very sobering warning, and a list of five things we must do now without fail, if we are to save our western culture and values.

“My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow Islam to gain a foothold here.”

“My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of Islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.”

Next page: How Europeans got into this mess.

This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com

When Nixon went to China in 1972, I was a very impressionable and inquisitive five-year-old who was captivated by the news reports about the leader of our country visiting this distant and fascinating land. Understanding that America and China had long experienced tension with each other, and alienation, Nixon’s visit had as great an impact on me as the moon landing had for children three years previously. Because the China visit was all I knew of him, Henry Kissinger, the man with the German accent who had facilitated the trip on behalf of our country was, to me, as marvelous as many schoolchildren deemed the astronauts of Apollo 11 to be. So it is that I did feel quite honored to receive an advance copy of Kissinger’s new book “On China“, a thorough overview of China’s relationship with the world from ancient times through today based on Henry Kissinger’s studies of Chinese history and his personal experiences in fifty visits to the country.

Though Kissinger was something of a hero to me all those years ago, that was then. This is now. Today, the world seems smaller geographically, but even larger in its difficulties, some of which may or may not be attributed to the diplomatic mechanisms of Henry Kissinger. Certainly, Kissinger left a large footprint in the area of American foreign policy, particularly in our dealings with China. That is precisely why his book is such an important contribution to the study of history. Certainly, it is a book that should be read by anyone who desires to have a good understanding of China’s place in the world, regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Kissinger.

One of the most important things I learned from the book was the insight given on how the people of China have viewed their nation and its place in the world over the centuries. We are certainly remiss if we do not take into account their points of view as we continue to engage in the important task of contributing to peace and stability in the world. Kissinger, however, is an icon of Realpolitik, and this shows through not only in how he handled relations with China, but also in how he wrote the book. It lacks condemnations of evil, but thankfully, also lacks support for evil. The thoroughly amoral nature of the book left me feeling very uncomfortable at times. Treating things like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion and Mao’s intent to destroy all things Confucian (not to mention his disregard for human life) as mere data for our consideration of how things were, as if they had no moral dimension, was rather shocking to me. An exchange between President Gerald Ford, Chairman Mao, and Henry Kissinger, left me utterly bewildered as it indicated to me that Mao — who ruled by terror and murdered millions — was more interested in God than Kissinger was.

MAO: Your Secretary of State has been interfering in my internal affairs.

FORD: Tell me about it.

MAO: He does not allow me to go and meet God. He even tells me to disobey the order that God has given to me. God has sent me an invitation,yet he [Kissinger] says, don’t go.

KISSINGER: That would be too powerful a combination if he went there.

MAO: He is an atheist [Kissinger]. He is opposed to God. And he is also undermining my relations with God. He is a very ferocious man and I have no other recourse than to obey his orders.

In regard to readibility, the book is a quick read in places and laborious in others. Kissinger does a good job of leaving nothing unsaid when it comes to the cold, hard facts of China’s history of foreign policy, and the book flows easily from topic to topic, with short chapters packed with information. I have no doubt that “On China“ will be widely considered as one of the most important books on foreign policy ever written.

For more reviews of this book, visit TLC Book Tours.

This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com

Never before have I walked into a church to be greeted by a barrier of armed police with metal detector wands. Nor have I had to let officers open my purse to search for weapons before I could enter a sanctuary—that is, until now.

That was when Geert Wilders came to speak at Cornerstone Church in Nashville, Tennessee. He came to warn America, to warn Christians. He came to wake up the Bible Belt to the threat of Islam. But before a single word was spoken, these ominous signs foreshadowed the truth of what was yet to come.

Geert Wilders is not a president, royalty, or anyone most of us would recognize on the street. And yet, as he took the podium to a loud applause and standing ovation, Wilders stood flanked with security constantly scanning the crowd, reminiscent of our own presidential secret service.

Why all the fuss for a representative from the Netherlands—a politician? Because he is a rare and endangered species; he is willing to speak the truth about what is happening in Europe. He refuses to submit to Islam or be bound and gagged by the power of the politically correct.

For this, he is facing a 16-month jail sentence by his own government for the high crime of “hate-speech.” Even more profound is that he is the constant target for assassination from the “misunderstanders of Islam.”

Wilders opened by telling the crowd he was happy to be there — happy to be able to speak freely, without the fear of being carted off to jail once he stepped out of the door. A concept hard for us here in the U.S. to grasp, but it is the stark reality of Europeans today.

He came with a very sobering warning, and a list of five things we must do now without fail, if we are to save our western culture and values.

“My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow Islam to gain a foothold here.”

“My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of Islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.”

Next page: How Europeans got into this mess.

As social justice becomes the new meaning for church among radical progressives, ACORN’s own Bertha Lewisseems to have found a home with Rev. Billy Talen and his anti-capitalist, revolutionary, Earth worshipping Church of Earthalujah. Many of us were treated to the video of her now infamous “Walmart sucks” performance at the church, but are left wondering what kind of church sings anti-capitalism hymns at their services? Is this what church is all about now for the progressive movement?

It was, not coincidentally, May Day when ACORN’s Bertha Lewis was declared a saint as described online inpromotion of the big event:

On May Day we stand with workers and immigrants and take to the streets! We’ll be marching as Reverend Billy and the Stop Big Boxes Gospel Choir along with Bertha Lewis, who will be our saint later that night at 7:30pm at The Church of Earthalujah!

And now, as so many New Yorkers are awash in sentimental Wal-mart ads, Bertha is not among those who are resigned to the arrival of this Giant Devil to the city – she’s leading the charge against the right-wing big box. For that, she will be our newest Fabulous Saint!

When the Rev. Billy Talen brought Bertha up to accept her “canonization,” he spoke of the importance of the attack on ACORN and promised they would “attend to it.”

Speaking in the flamboyant style of Jeremiah Wright, Bertha spoke to the congregation/ticket holders/Marxists or whatever the audience calls themselves:

Acorn is recognizing the struggle, the attacks that the Devil put upon us which was a precursor to Wisconsin. But there’s a New Deal going on right tonight…

She then launches into a moving diatribe (worship song?) about the evil Walmart and its’ oppressed, discriminated-against employees, crescendoing into a rousing chorus of “Walmart sucks.”

As it winds down, she declares:

…as long as I am a saint of the church of Stop Shopping Now, ain’t nobody gonna be shopping there. Amen.

We have to wonder what kind of church would bring out the passion in Bertha like this, and just what are they all about? Let’s start with their leader, the colorful Billy Talen, who ran for Mayor of New York against Bloomberg in 2009.

Rev. Billy is always on the go, as he has been for years. In his latest performance on May 11th, he was arrested for tresspassing at an anti-Koch brothers rally. Rev. Billy relates the horrifying incident this way:

The “Guerrilla Drive-In” at Lincoln Center was an experiment that many of the activists of New York attended – as if this cliff-hanger protest might reveal the future (which, yes, it has). Brave New Foundation, Agit-Pop, The Other 98%, Yes Lab, Critical Mass, the Rude Mechanical Orchestra and our own Church of Earthalujah worked in concert.

I enjoyed a role like that of a band-leader, motioning the congregation toward the west wall of the New York State Theater Building, preaching there a while from the top of a planter. Meanwhile guerrilla projectionists focused giant and savagely funny images of the Koch brothers on the white edifices.

The whole thing was over in a little more than an hour. As we were walking toward our car with our troupe’s director and my partner Savi, who carried our 13 month old Lena, we noticed three muscle-men running toward us through the darkness of the Avenue. SWAT-team-like, they pushed around a while shouting in my face, cuffed me and pushed me into a black car. I vanished into the system for 24 hours in this continuing fetish the NYPD has for jailing the “Billy preacher guy.”

Here are some recent ponderings from Rev. Billy’s blog which should clarify the stance of the “church”:

This popular post was first published here on May 9, 2011.

It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.

Revelations that rock the status quo are hard to take.  And sometimes people rather lie about the messenger than listen to truth. People didn’t want to hear the earth wasn’t flat, cigarettes weren’t healthy, or pro-wrestling was fake. I still don’t believe the last one! People don’t want to be challenged. And those who challenge are often gagged. That was true this week when the University of California Santa Barbara student council had to vote on allowing David Horowitz to speak on their campus.

Earlier this week the Associated Students Legislative Council of UCSB met to discuss giving student money so that Horowitz could give a speech. The College Republicans scheduled Horowitz as a guest speaker, and the school is supposedly obligated to help pay for security and technology needs to pull off the event.

Last Monday, the board denied any money for the speech. One problem: the board is not allowed to deny the funding simply because they find the speech offensive. On Wednesday, the Republican group went back to the board and asked for the minutes to be reopened and the issue to be reconsidered. The groups asked again for around $1500 to help put on the event. The council meeting lasted six hours as free speech was discussed and while Horowitz was made out to be the anti-Christ.

In the end the board would vote to give the College Republicans only about half the money needed.  Even worse, the all night session was a disturbing battle that consisted of a barrage of lies about Horowitz. Not only was his character questioned, but angry student Leftist groups did a hatchet job on Horowitz using a doctored Youtube tape. Both the board and one of the reporters covering the meeting fell for these lies.

During Public Forum…(they) played a YouTube video to the audience and Leg Council depicting Horowitz giving a speech filled with racial slurs and accusations at Brooklyn College December 2010…  In the video, Horowitz is heard to say the following statements such as “no other people have sunk themselves so low as the Palestinians” as well as “Arabs are racists, Jew haters, and can’t live peacefully with others.

I’m not sure why Amanda Garcia, the student author of this article, would misrepresent the Horowitz Youtube video this way.  Anyone can go watch it themselves and see how the video only shows clips of Horowitz out of context.  And anyone who watches it can see that Garcia has misquoted and misrepresented Horowitz’s statements in the video.  (Go see the video for yourself, or better yet, see the whole unedited video.  And for a serious rebuttal of the chopped up video, check out this blog which features pictures and video of the event.)

The Youtube video shown at UCSB gives only snippets of a speech (given this March – not last December) where Horowitz is discussing Palestinians who have acted out in terror against Israel and are demanding the removal or destruction of Jews.  It is specifically these people who Horowitz calls “racist, Jew haters” who have “sunk themselves so low morally” (Garcia removed the word morally when she quoted Horowitz).  Yet the Leftist students at the UCSB meeting (along with the Garcia article) portray Horowitz as saying all Arabs are racists and all Palestinians are the dregs of society.

The edited version of Horowitz’s speech was reportedly made by Philip Weiss, a known anti-Israel activist and Horowitz hater.  It appears student Sophia Armen, the person showing the Youtube propaganda piece, did not disclose that information.  In fact, Armen is the head of Human Rights Group at UCSB, which is a division of Human Rights Watch (a group known for being anti-Israel).  This isn’t Armen’s first dip into attempting to silence speakers.

Last year she helped lead a campus walk-out on Karl Rove and went so far as to call him a “war criminal” to the press.

Others at the meeting claimed Horowitz was hate-filled and dangerous.  One Muslim student (a member of the student council no less) proclaimed having Horowitz come to campus would make him feel unsafe, though he never detailed why.

As a marginalized individual, I feel my safety is somewhat threatened by bringing this individual to campus.  I don’t want to subject anyone else to the hate that I’ve experienced. – Ahmed Mostafa

The Left has learned that the best way to gag someone is call them racist.  But if that doesn’t work, the last straw is to say that someone’s speech will somehow endanger you physically.  It doesn’t matter that there are zero reports of someone harming people based on hearing Horowitz speak.  You say whatever lie works to keep people from listening to the truth.

Even though UCSB isn’t giving the College Republicans all the money that is due them for the Horowitz event, the good news is that the speech will still happen.  The next question will be how will the anti-Israel, Horowitz haters react when it’s time for the actual speech.  Will freedom win out or will there be more lies to try to silence truth?

They called it ugly man’s paradise. In parts of the Muslim world you will find unattractive and usually older foreign white men married to beautiful, young Muslim women. All they have to do to get the family’s approval is convert to Islam.  Now that may sound tough, but it’s easier than you think. The ugly Caucasian must merely make a declaration of faith which Muslims call the Shahada. In Indonesia, where I have traveled, the Shahada is often simply stating, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.”  Say it, pretend you mean it, and voila you are Muslim and can marry that young hotty in the hijab.

Most people don’t have a problem with some non-believing Euro-trash fake converting to Islam for marriage purposes. But when the marriage involves a real Christian and a Muslim (or two Christians where people believe one wants to convert to Islam), the picture changes. Suddenly you are talking fire bombing churches and Muslims killing Christians. Such a violent reaction took place this past weekend in Egypt, offering us yet another example of the error in thinking Mubarak was the only problem in that country.

The news coverage has varied, but we know that last Saturday Muslims attacked and firebombed two churches in Cairo, Egypt and at least twelve people were killed while hundreds were injured. Reports say that an ultraconservative Muslim group known as Salafists attacked one of the churches because they believed a Christian woman who was married to a Muslim man was being held hostage. The local Muslims believed (for some unknown reason) that the Christian woman decided to convert to Islam, so the Christians had kidnapped her to stop her from doing so.

No evidence has been offered by the Salafists to back up their story. It is common in many parts of the Muslim world for people to spread lies as a reason to kill more Christians. Anyone who follows such news has read how Muslims have accused Christians of burning Korans, saying offensive things about Mohammad (like he was a child rapist – oh wait, that’s true) or not wearing Muslim attire as reasons to burn buildings, beat or even kill women. Well, add mixed marriages to the list of excuses to act out in terror against non-Muslims.

A Washington Post editorial summarized this Islamic worldwide problem well:

Pressure on Christian minorities, violent and otherwise, has been a chronic feature of the Arab and Muslim political landscape in recent years. In Pakistan, gunmen murdered two high-profile opponents of laws that impose the death penalty for insulting Islam; one victim was a Christian, the other the son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother. Iraq was home to more than 1 million Christians before the 2003 U.S. invasion; roughly half have fled, largely because of radical Islamist attacks.

This Saturday’s attacks were fierce and frightening.

This is not the first time since Mubarak was booted that we have seen Islamic violence against Christians.  Just last March I reported on another church burning where Muslims killed Christians just outside of Cairo.  Witnesses claimed during that attack that the military did not help the Christians and may have even been part of the violence. Some have said the same thing about last week’s violence.

My son attends this church. How can we ever feel safe?  This is religious strife facilitated by the army and police. Let’s just face the truth. – Nashaat Boshra

Clearly the Left was wrong about what Egypt would be post-Mubarak. But there is another lesson the Left needs to learn: the spread of Sharia means the spread of at least a thread of ultraconservative Islamists who will find any reason to bring violence towards non-Muslims, especially Christians. Egypt is not alone in such activity. Find me one dominant Muslim nation where this activity doesn’t take place. They may be ugly man’s paradise, but for the rest of us, these places are just plain nightmares.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, a Catholic, is set to give the commencement speech at Catholic University of America (CUA), and the “elite” Catholic Left could not be more upset. A “whopping” seventy Catholic professors, priests and nuns have signed a letter in protest. There are often more Catholics than that at my rural Kentucky parish’s Saturday night Mass. So why is the Soros-funded movement media at Think Progress freaking out over John Boehner speaking at CUA? The reason has nothing to do with the “Church’s Ancient Moral Teachings” and everything to do with the left’s political agenda. At stake are the pro-abortion president‘s hopes for re-election and 67 million Catholic votes. Think Progress sees political value in assisting the Catholic Left in “re-defining” (through false messaging) what Catholicism really teaches on important campaign issues like health care and the economy. Is Boehner really in opposition to Catholic teaching on service to the poor? No. But the Left certainly is.

There are actually many arguments that faithful Catholics can make in defense of the true teachings of the Catholic Faith on the issue of service to the poor, but today I will focus on just one. Subsidiarity is often given by the Catholic faithful as the Church’s main prohibition against “big government”. Today, I’d like to focus instead on one important facet of subsidiarity. That is the importance that defense of the common good be “voluntary“.

From the Catholic Catechism [emphasis mine]:

Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

It is precisely the voluntary nature  of our activity that a just social order and defense of the common good is ensured. Only activity that is “voluntary” can develop “initiative and responsibility” within peoples’ hearts that “helps guarantee” the rights we have. This includes all rights, including the right to health care, the right to economic security, etc. The more government controls health care, the markets, etc., the less voluntary is the participation of individuals in defense of the common good. Individuals in society lose their sense of “responsibility”, as well as their “initiative”. Not only do the poor and the sick become more dependent upon “government” than upon families and local communities, the families and local communities also lose their sense of “initiative” and “responsibility”. They get lazy in the area of compassion. Subsidiarity isn’t, then, just a “rule” we have to follow because we’re Catholics. It’s a rule that, if followed appropriately, will bring about a society that really does care for the poor, the sick, and others who would otherwise by marginalized.

Next: Volunteerism Versus Tyranny

In February, capitalizing (pardon the expression) on the union instigated Wisconsin “crisis,” Van Jones announced his American Dream movement. Just a few short months later, it was announced that he would join the Pachamama Alliance in the fight for rights for Mother Earth. Although seemingly unrelated, it all appears to be part of the same South American dream of a Marxist utopia.

In keeping with the dream, we recently heard from Bolivia. As a member nation of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), leading the way with Ecuador, Ambassador Pablo Solón recently declared the following in a speech to the United Nations, on the Occasion of the General Assembly Interactive Dialogue on Harmony with Nature:

Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?

It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.

Both Van Jones and Pachamama founder Lynne Twist have, in the past, embraced Marxism and that cannot be ignored. The Pachamama Alliance works with Bolivia and has worked closely with Rafael Correa’s Marxist government of Ecuador for years and celebrated their move to give legal rights to nature back in 2008. Shown here is her friend Correa, singing a song about Castro and Che with good buddies Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara’s daughter:

Back in 2008, Lynne returned from a year in South America to announce:

Inspired by what has happened in Ecuador, the President of the Andean Pact – a European Union-like body of the Andes, has asked our Latin American foundation to work with fellow Andean Pact nations of Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru to create “Rights to Nature” amendments for their constitutions. We have had the honor of playing a significant role in making this happen.

Pachamama has created a special site just for their movement called the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature. Founding members include the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) in the United States, which “helps community groups and municipalities write and adopt laws that assert community rights, including the rights of nature.”

 On the executive committee is Mari Margil, the first associate director of CELDF. She teaches Democracy Schools (aka community organizing) across the country. She also advised Ecuador’s Constituent Assembly in its move to recognize the rights of nature in the nation’s new constitution.

What’s especially disconcerting about this is how much Mari and CELDF have accomplished in Pittsburg, taking a baby step for Mother Earth. Her own piece about it has the boastful headline, “Pittsburgh Bans Natural Gas Drilling – A historic new ordinance bans natural gas drilling while elevating community decision making and the rights of nature over the ‘rights’ associated with corporate personhood.” Happening in several communities, the hope is that it will eventually become an “Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

The Pachamama/Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature site features a video from Grit TV that reinforces their intentions. As stated in the video:

I think that the real issue here is that modern humanity, and I don’t talk about indigenous people or traditional people, but in our society people look at nature as a great big resource, for our pleasure, profit and convenience. And we do whatever we want with it, we dump whatever we want into it, we move whatever we want where ever we want and, and we’re in trouble. And when we have rights, we have rights for corporations; we have rights for the market, the entire neo classical market system is based on destruction of the earth that gives us everything. And our governments continue no matter what they say out of their mouths to promote unregulated trade, unlimited growth, and more destruction of these resources. So this is a way to say can we turn our collective heads around, to say what would the earth look like, what would our lives look like if the earth had rights. Not just in its service to us…can we go a step further and say, regardless of us—does water, does bio-diversity, does the air, does other species have inherent rights just because they were created. 

It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.

It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.

Revelations that rock the status quo are hard to take.  And sometimes people rather lie about the messenger than listen to truth. People didn’t want to hear the earth wasn’t flat, cigarettes weren’t healthy, or pro-wrestling was fake. I still don’t believe the last one! People don’t want to be challenged. And those who challenge are often gagged. That was true this week when the University of California Santa Barbara student council had to vote on allowing David Horowitz to speak on their campus.

Earlier this week the Associated Students Legislative Council of UCSB met to discuss giving student money so that Horowitz could give a speech. The College Republicans scheduled Horowitz as a guest speaker, and the school is supposedly obligated to help pay for security and technology needs to pull off the event.

Last Monday, the board denied any money for the speech. One problem: the board is not allowed to deny the funding simply because they find the speech offensive. On Wednesday, the Republican group went back to the board and asked for the minutes to be reopened and the issue to be reconsidered. The groups asked again for around $1500 to help put on the event. The council meeting lasted six hours as free speech was discussed and while Horowitz was made out to be the anti-Christ.

In the end the board would vote to give the College Republicans only about half the money needed.  Even worse, the all night session was a disturbing battle that consisted of a barrage of lies about Horowitz. Not only was his character questioned, but angry student Leftist groups did a hatchet job on Horowitz using a doctored Youtube tape. Both the board and one of the reporters covering the meeting fell for these lies.

During Public Forum…(they) played a YouTube video to the audience and Leg Council depicting Horowitz giving a speech filled with racial slurs and accusations at Brooklyn College December 2010…  In the video, Horowitz is heard to say the following statements such as “no other people have sunk themselves so low as the Palestinians” as well as “Arabs are racists, Jew haters, and can’t live peacefully with others.

I’m not sure why Amanda Garcia, the student author of this article, would misrepresent the Horowitz Youtube video this way.  Anyone can go watch it themselves and see how the video only shows clips of Horowitz out of context.  And anyone who watches it can see that Garcia has misquoted and misrepresented Horowitz’s statements in the video.  (Go see the video for yourself, or better yet, see the whole unedited video.  And for a serious rebuttal of the chopped up video, check out this blog which features pictures and video of the event.)

The Youtube video shown at UCSB gives only snippets of a speech (given this March – not last December) where Horowitz is discussing Palestinians who have acted out in terror against Israel and are demanding the removal or destruction of Jews.  It is specifically these people who Horowitz calls “racist, Jew haters” who have “sunk themselves so low morally” (Garcia removed the word morally when she quoted Horowitz).  Yet the Leftist students at the UCSB meeting (along with the Garcia article) portray Horowitz as saying all Arabs are racists and all Palestinians are the dregs of society.

The edited version of Horowitz’s speech was reportedly made by Philip Weiss, a known anti-Israel activist and Horowitz hater.  It appears student Sophia Armen, the person showing the Youtube propaganda piece, did not disclose that information.  In fact, Armen is the head of Human Rights Group at UCSB, which is a division of Human Rights Watch (a group known for being anti-Israel).  This isn’t Armen’s first dip into attempting to silence speakers.

Last year she helped lead a campus walk-out on Karl Rove and went so far as to call him a “war criminal” to the press.

Others at the meeting claimed Horowitz was hate-filled and dangerous.  One Muslim student (a member of the student council no less) proclaimed having Horowitz come to campus would make him feel unsafe, though he never detailed why.

As a marginalized individual, I feel my safety is somewhat threatened by bringing this individual to campus.  I don’t want to subject anyone else to the hate that I’ve experienced. – Ahmed Mostafa

The Left has learned that the best way to gag someone is call them racist.  But if that doesn’t work, the last straw is to say that someone’s speech will somehow endanger you physically.  It doesn’t matter that there are zero reports of someone harming people based on hearing Horowitz speak.  You say whatever lie works to keep people from listening to the truth.

Even though UCSB isn’t giving the College Republicans all the money that is due them for the Horowitz event, the good news is that the speech will still happen.  The next question will be how will the anti-Israel, Horowitz haters react when it’s time for the actual speech.  Will freedom win out or will there be more lies to try to silence truth?

It’s been several years since Bill O’Reilly began emphasizing the significance of America’s culture war — the one between traditionalists who think America is pretty great and “S-Ps,” or secular-progressives, who have a deep hostility to America and want to change it completely. The culture war is as alive today as when O’Reilly began stressing it, but what he and others fail to hone in on is that the war is driven primarily by women. It is women, specifically, who have thrown a dagger in the one institution that affects the rest: the American family.

That the mainstream media is a left-wing operation consisting of “S-Ps” is scarcely debatable, but it’s the women in the media — the feminist elite — who have the real power. The female professors, lawyers, journalists, writers, judges, actresses, and psychologists we hear from daily are quintessential “S-Ps.” Their primary target is the American family – and the MSM is their bully pulpit.

So it wasn’t surprising that the New York Times would take a perfectly glorious day, Mother’s Day, and publish an op-ed by professor Stephanie Coontz entitled “When We Hated Mom.” Its message is the same tired message women on the left have been making for decades: the 1950s American housewife needed rescuing from her sad lot in life – and feminists were their saviors. Those who argue otherwise – namely, me – are dismissed as clueless.

‘One of the most enduring myths about feminism,’ writes Coontz, ‘is that 50 years ago women who stayed home full time with their children enjoyed higher social status and more satisfying lives than they do today. That myth – repeated in Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly’s new book, The Flipside of Feminism – reflects a misreading of American history.

I’ll let the non kool-aid drinkers determine whether or not The Flipside of Feminism reflects a misreading of American history. (For the record, not one sentence in Coontz’s article is devoted to debunking the material in my book.) In the meantime, let’s look at the message that was reflected in the New York Times on Mother’s Day.

First, some background. Stephanie Coontz (you can find her here) is a family studies professor at Evergreen State College. She is also the author of several books, one of which is titled The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Coontz’s passion seems to be debunking the fact that family life in America has declined considerably. Her most recent book, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s, studies the positive effect Coontz believes Betty Friedan’s book had on women and society.

Like all members of the feminist elite, Coontz’s sympathies are with Friedan and the women for whom she believes were “saved” by feminism. (No doubt Coontz feels a comraderie with Friedan since they were both once members of socialist parties.) Indeed, Coontz’s arguments fall perfectly in line with all feminists’ arguments. Consider these examples from A Strange Stirring:

The glass ceiling is not yet shattered.

Many women still internalize a self-effacing definition of femininity that reinforces second-class status.

Most men have improved their attitudes and behavior considerably.

Motherhood may have replaced gender as the primary factor constraining women’s choices.

Men’s growing discontent is a positive thing.

This popular post was first published here on April 23, 2011.

Our mainstream media  and political leaders rolled the dice on Egypt and the Middle East by backing the overthrow of the Mubarak government.  They didn’t gamble with their own money though, they gambled with the lives of innocent people throughout the region.  Now their recklessness  has proven dangerous as the Muslim Brotherhood has finally admitted they are aiming to bring violent extremes of Sharia to the people of Egypt and a sure destruction to relations with Israel.

How many times were we told not to worry about Egypt?  How many times were we told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t so bad?  How many times were we told we were watching a pro-democracy movement in Egypt that had nothing to do with the spread of radical Islam?  How many times were we told that Israel and America had nothing to fear by an Egyptian leadership change?  Well the mainstream media, the Left, and the like were all wrong.  They were dead wrong and now we know it.

The independent news source Al-Masry al-Youm reported last week that Muslim Brotherhood leaders have finally admitted to wanting Egyptian government to be based on Sharia law:

Mahmoud Ezzat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide, said in a forum held in the Cairo district of Imbaba on Thursday that the group wants to establish an Islamic state after it achieves widespread popularity through its Freedom and Justice Party. Meanwhile, Brotherhood leader Saad al-Husseiny, said at the forum that the group aims to apply Islamic legislation and establish Islamic rule.

The reaction by moderates and Coptic Christians is near panic.  Even some of them had been convinced or at least hoped that the Brotherhood had changed its ways.  With these recent revelations, Christian groups in Cairo are canceling Easter service invitations to Brotherhood members.  Abdel Maseeh Baseet, the pastor of the Church of Saint Marie in Mostorod, Egypt said we now know the true plans of the Brotherhood and it’s time for the rest of us to realize it:

This way of thinking is rejected both locally and internationally. The world is not ready for a Taliban-style state.

Maybe not surprisingly, but sadly, some on the Left continue to defend the Brotherhood regardless of recent revelations.  They are ignoring moderate and Coptic Egyptians and blaming America instead.

The Brotherhood is more likely to remain moderate if the U.S. takes what is perceived in Egypt as a reasonable stance on the Israel-Palestine question.  We push the Egyptian public toward fundamentalism with actions like our recent veto in the U.N. Security Council of a draft resolution that would have criticized Israel for its civilian settlements in the Palestinian territory… – John Quigley, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

So the Brotherhood, according to the Left, is actually moderate, but if they become radical it is because America has pushed them to it.  Why?  Because we have the audacity to support Israel.  Exactly how different are such views from Jeremiah Wright claiming that 9-11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost?  I guess when the true Left discovers they are wrong they just double down on anti-America and anti-Israel speech.

The Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide Ezzat also said that “enforcement of Sharia punishments will need time and will only come after Islam is planted in every heart and masters the life of the people.”  Such comments should awaken all in the so-called liberal and progressive world to the real mindset of Islamists.  They don’t simply want freedom of religion.  Devout and committed Muslims want Islam to be “planted in every heart” and for us to accept our slavery to Allah.  (That goal is not limited to Egypt or the Middle East, that is the Islamists’ desire for the entire world – including America.)

The good news is that these statements by the Brotherhood are waking up some in Egypt who previously thought the organization should get at least some power in government.  If enough people find out about the Brotherhood’s comments then they may lose a chance at power (which is why the Brotherhood now claims the press misrepresented their comments).  Of course, the problem is that these statements are being ignored by much of the press.  So our media and leaders’ silence could actually help the Brotherhood take power and implement Sharia.

Brotherhood leadership could mean the destruction of Egypt’s relations with Israel and even the death of moderate voices in a once moderate Egypt.  So why doesn’t the media and government shout this news from the mountain tops?  Because they don’t want to  be shown for being wrong – even if it means being dead wrong.

This popular post was first published here on May 2, 2011.

Now that the Agenda 21 Dream Team is officially in place, “Mother Earth’s” rights and yours could get swapped- at least that’s the mission.

Last week it was announced that Van Jones has officially become a board member of the Pachamama Alliance.  To ignore the progression of Agenda 21 and “sustainability” is to ignore a potentially major change in global power that will affect the lives of everyone worldwide.

If they are able to gain the rights they seek, this could apply to just about everything we do and would certainly gain them total control of land and resource use at the very least.

You need to know just what Agenda 21 and Pachamama Alliance are and why you should care.

Pachamama’s stated purpose:

to empower indigenous people of the Amazon rainforest to preserve their lands and culture and, using insights gained from that work, to educate and inspire individuals everywhere to bring forth a thriving, just and sustainable world.

Van Jones has been very close to founder Lynne Twist for years, working on many of the same projects, so why is this the time they would choose to “officially” bring him on board at Pachamama? Looks like it’s full steam ahead for Agenda 21.

Along with the announcement, it was stated that they are working toward a proposal for the 2012 UN Rio Summit for “rights” for Mother Earth, otherwise known as sustainable development and/or Agenda 21. Agenda 21 came out of UNCED in Rio back in 1992:

The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) affirmed UN commitment to ‘full implementation’ of Agenda 21, alongside achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and other international agreements.

Agenda 21 has the potential for complete global control, as it calls for sustainable development. According to the American Policy Center:

…the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

“Every societal decision” made by the UN’s Agenda 21 policy; that is pretty all encompassing. With this policy, we can be told we must live by their idea of social justice, redistribution, population control, elimination of private property ownership and lack of sovereignty. Property is considered to belong to the community and be controlled by the government. It seems that Agenda 21 is one big Marxist wish list come true.

If it sounds far fetched to you, you haven’t been paying attention. Federal, state and NGO groups have been hard at work implementing these policies, often under the radar. Implementation comes under many names and many groups to disassociate it with the phrase “Agenda 21” and can usually be identified whenever you see “sustainability,” “smart growth,” “biodiversity” or “habitat” in the wording of the effort.

In some cases, it is proposed as a voluntary plan, but that is just a step in the process. Citizens can already dedicate their land use on a voluntary basis, so there is no reason to legislate it unless it is merely the beginning of a process.

Among hundreds of efforts nationwide, just this week we have seen the agenda in action is happening in West Texas. U.S. Fish & Wildlife is working to shut down oil and gas production due to their grave concern over the dunes sagebrush lizard, which the Obama administration is working to add to the endangered list. (I guess BP wasn’t available to shut things down in the desert, so they had to go for an endangered lizard to get the job done.) Investors.com commented:

When Obama recently addressed the current energy crisis, he told Americans not to worry:

We’ve been down this road before.

But we should worry — and for that very reason. We’ve seen the spotted owl kill logging and create ghost towns in the Northwest. The ESA’s listing of the delta smelt created 40% unemployment in California’s San Joaquin Valley and turned America’s food basket into a dust bowl.

Already you will see plans of how the UN agenda is being used to relocate populations to where they want them. Referring to Nigeria, Sidney Clouston of Clouston Energy Research writes:

The Top Down services are to meet with the Bottom UP activities which are to be Contract Growing contracts for the poor rural people. Employment opportunities can be promoted in urban slums so voluntary relocation to jobs and a better future may be the result.

China has been very active in the manipulation and movement of its’ people as well, following the Agenda 21 game plan. The Daily Bell describes the empty ghost towns of China as the government builds a mega city where they can concentrate population, and they suggest a possible link to Agenda 21 planning:

To us the entire plan as enunciated, seems to mimic the worst features of the USSR, where sterile, crumbling planned developments still dominate local landscapes. The Chinese may do it better but the spirit is no more laudable. The powers-that-be will decide where and how average Chinese will live, and obviously most of them will live in cities.

No wonder Van Jones wants a bigger piece of this action.

Coming soon to a metro area near you? Starting on a local level, as many citizen groups are already doing, every effort must be made to stop this in its tracks. Check out what’s going on in your state. It’s time to educate others and speak out loud and clear wherever you see this happening.

For those who would write them off as a bunch of environmental crazies; crazy, yes. Crazy like a fox, and the fox is already in the hen house.

For further reading:

Sustainable Development in One Easy Lesson

Sustainable Development or Sustainable Freedom?