Geert Wilders Presents: 5 Steps Americans Must Take to Avoid the Fate of Islamized Europe

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

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.

More:
Geert Wilders Presents: 5 Steps Americans Must Take to Avoid the Fate of Islamized Europe

No responses yet

The New Egypt a Leftist Paradise: Hottie Young Brides in Hijab and the Sanctioned Slaughter of Christians That Marry Muslims

May 14 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

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.

No responses yet

Overthrowing Capitalism-Van Jones Presents the New American Dream

May 11 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

  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 M argil, 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.   That’s a pretty broad brush, isn’t it, not to mention what a legislative nightmare it would be. It essentially gives complete control to lawyers wherever such legislation is in place, and if they have their way, the UN will put it in place worldwide. Can you think of anything that could not be potentially controlled by this kind of legislation? Reflecting on their words, we need to consider Ambassador Solon’s quote once again: It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism. Overthrowing capitalism…is that their new American Dream ? I think Ambassador Solon and CELDF have made their intentions quite clear. Put it together with Van’s outline for the American Dream Movement and work with Pachamama, and it sounds like more of an impending nightmare to me.  

Here is the original post:
Overthrowing Capitalism-Van Jones Presents the New American Dream

No responses yet

“When We Hated Mom” Mother’s Day at the New York Times

May 09 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

No responses yet

Bombs Fall on School for Disabled Children-With Obama Behind the Wheel of America’s Reckless War on Libya

May 05 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

I do career mentoring in my town with high school kids.  It’s kind of like Big Brother, Big Sister. A year ago I let my 16-year-old mentee, who had a driver’s permit, drive my car from the school to my house while I was in the passenger seat.  He was doing great until it was time to park in the garage.  As he pulled in he suddenly hit the gas and was head toward a wall that would lead into my living room.  Not wanting him to put a car through my house, I screamed for the kid to slam on the brakes and he did at the last possible second.  We avoided near disaster but the car had wicked damage along the side from him scraping up against an A/C unit in the garage.  That was the last day I let him drive my car. I was dumb enough to let someone unskilled drive my car.   The Obama administration is insane enough to let someone unskilled drive a war in Libya. And the damage is getting worse and worse.  The latest wreck in the battle against Qaddafi involves airstrike last Saturday morning on a completely non-military target. Early in the morning, thankfully before disabled children showed up for school at the Libyan Down Syndrome Society, NATO pilots sent missiles into the school building.  The attack destroyed a much-needed facility for disabled kids.  The founder of the school, and a parent of a disabled teenager were shocked. I felt sad, really. I kept thinking, what are we going to do with these children?  This is not the place we left on Thursday afternoon. NATO has not explained who their actual target was.  The Libyan government claims NATO planes were trying to hit Qaddafi who was doing a nearby interview at a television station that morning. ‘They maybe wanted to hit the television. This is a non-military, non-governmental building.’ -Mohammed al-Mehdi, head of the civil societies council. Imagine what the press would have been if this building had been filled with children.  Around 60 kids could have been killed and everyone involved, including our government, would have held responsibility.  I can’t guarantee it, but I tend to think if U.S. military forces were allowed to take charge, this mistake would have never happened. I know President Obama appears to be untouchable right now after killing Osama bin Laden, but Libya is still a serious problem that needs a serious change of policy.  We cannot be in a war but then refuse to lead it and refuse to even call it a war.  (Recently the administration rejected the word “war” for  “kinetic military action” .)  We simply do not have all three of the familiar options of lead, follow, or get out of the way.  We either need to lead or get out of the way.  Following the lead of others gets schools for disabled children blown up. The school is for kids up to age 6.  How can we say we are in Libya to protect citizens but supporting military action that almost killed 60 preschoolers with disabilities?  I understand collateral damage, but that is ridiculous.  If we aren’t in the driver seat on this thing, we need to jump out of the car and take the keys with us. So far we’ve only scraped the side of the vehicle.  I’m afraid any day now the car is going right through the garage wall and into the living room.

No responses yet

Illiterate Children Reciting the Koran on Film: The Left Gives a Standing Ovation for Islam

Apr 27 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

No responses yet

Dead Wrong: Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Demands Sharia Slavery

Apr 23 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

No responses yet

Oprah Winfrey Network Ops For Ratings Rather Than “The One”

Apr 12 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Well, the chances that President Obama’s re-election campaign would spark a revival of the heady days of 2007-2008 diminished last week when Oprah Winfrey’s people made it clear that the Cult of Barack’s most ardent novitiate would be sitting this one out. This is quite a transition from four short years ago, when Winfrey served Candidate Obama as his impassioned voice across the wilderness of daytime television – preparing the way for the “bigger than all of us” candidate like John the Baptist in Christian Loumoutin stilettos. For example, who could ever forget this over-the-top declaration in Iowa: “I am here to tell you… he is the one! He is the one!” Apparently, Oprah herself. Because there’s a good chance that “the One” is going to get canned and evicted next year, while Winfrey sits firmly ensconced in the studios of her ratings-challenged cable empire — fingers in her ears — yammering about the break-up of Miley Cyrus’ parents and the mating habits of koala bears. What does this mean? Well, according to anonymous sources , Oprah has decided that Obama isn’t “the One” after all – at least “the One” who can deliver the ratings she needs. So, she’s ditched the chasuble and incense and is back to hawking self-help books and relationship advice. ‘For 2012, much has changed for Oprah. She now has own cable channel called OWN that has been struggling to find an audience — she isn’t going to do anything to alienate them,’ a TV insider tells me. ‘Unlike in 2008, when a drop in ratings didn’t matter as much for the queen of TV, Oprah is now fighting every day to get people to tune into OWN.’ Just shows how fickle the faithful can be. In 2008, Obama was “the most powerful thing” Winfrey had “ever experienced.” A “transcendent” new “level of consciousness for our country,” and a “new way of being in the world” whose tongue (gag me) was “dipped in the unvarnished truth.” But now, according to sources; it’s 2011, things have changed, and Oprah has to make a choice: On one hand, she’s got the transcendent, most-powerful, New Way of Being in the World, and on the other, the Nielsen ratings. Of course, the decision would have been easier to make, had she backslidden and fallen away at some earlier time. After all, the seeds of doubt could have been planted as early as Inauguration Day 2009, when the newly sworn-in president failed to mount the Capitol dome and rain fiery thunderbolts upon mortality, poverty, disease, supply and demand, carbon-belching SUVs, and George Bush’s retreating motorcade. And who can blame Oprah for avoiding an encore performance of the 2007 con job campaign, now that everyone knows Obama didn’t hold back the tides of the ocean, or prosper the nation through government power grabs and deficit spending, or magically declare all mortgages paid, all gas tanks filled, jobs for everyone, and a chicken in every pot. Those are much more plausible reasons for Oprah to ditch someone that she had previously shouted from the rooftops was “bigger than all of us” than the crassness of ad revenues and flagging viewership numbers. After all, she wasn’t so preoccupied with ratings in 2007 when she zealously set about converting her audience into fellow catechists in “the One’s” personality cult; insisting, when questioned , that Obama’s special anointing transcended any pretense of objectivity or professional decorum: I believed that Barack Obama’s candidacy was bigger than all of us… and that I believed that he was called, that this is about a series of providences all happening at the same time, one thing occurring, another thing occurring, and that this has been coming, has been coming, has been coming, been coming… Coming for what? To smack her for being so besotted that she’d taken to repeating herself like a broken record? Not anymore. Somewhere along the line, the halo has fallen off… if it ever really existed in the first place.

Visit link:
Oprah Winfrey Network Ops For Ratings Rather Than “The One”

No responses yet

Older posts »