Video of Pro-Israel Activists Attacked

Video of Pro-Israel activists verbally and physically attacked for peaceful counter-protest at Anti-Israel Protest in Oakland, California.

Football Authorities Are the New Self-Appointed Thought Police

The 20-year-old Greek football player Giorgos Katidis, AEK Athens midfielder, has been banned for life from all national teams by Greece's Football Association after he stretched his arm and gave what looked like a Nazi salute to supporters in celebrating his winning goal during a match at the Athens Olympic Stadium.

Giorgos Katidis has been verbally attacked by political parties and fans as well, also in view of the fact that Sunday is the 70th anniversary of Greek Jews' deportations to Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

The real fascists here are those who banned him. The Greek FA said in a statement: "The player's action to salute to spectators in a Nazi manner is a severe provocation, insults all the victims of Nazi bestiality and injures the deeply pacifist and human character of the game".

Incredibly severe words and terribly harsh punishment for a 20-year-old who denied he gave a Nazi salute and said he would not have made the gesture if he had known what it meant, adding that he was only pointing at his team mate Michalis Pavlis in the stands to dedicate the goal to him, who is fighting against health problems.

The coach of Katidis' team AEK Athens, Ewald Lienen, supported him, saying that he is a non-political young kid, who did not know what he was doing and cried in the dressing room after seeing the reaction.

Have the football authorities, in Greece as in Britain and all over Europe, appointed themselves as guardians of political correctness? Does football now have to police thought and speech, in an Orwellian fashion?

And, crucially, would Giorgos Katidis have been banned for life, if he had given the communist clenched fist salute?

Globally, communist regimes killed 94 million people, as opposed to the 11 million killed by Nazism.

The double standard is cowardly and revolting.

Media Try to Report Lars Hedegaard’s New Address after His Attempted Assassination

Indescribable.

Two newspaper reporters, following a van moving Danish anti-Islam activist Lars Hedegaard’s possessions to a new address following his attempted assassination on his own doorstep, tried to report the route taken by the van until the police stopped them:

Cynical as I am about the media’s stance toward critics of Islam, even I was taken aback by an article that was posted Thursday evening on the website of the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet, and that I assume appeared in Friday’s print edition.

Headlined “Lars Hedegaard moves” and written by Bo Poulsen, the article began by informing readers that on the previous day the possessions of the Islam critic, who survived an assassination attempt last month at his apartment in the Copenhagen suburb of Frederiksberg, had been loaded into a moving van and driven off. The article is accompanied by a picture of the moving van outside Hedegaard’s former residence.

Here’s the kicker. Two Ekstra Bladet staffers, presumably Poulsen and a photographer, were in a car watching the moving men load the van, after which they followed it. And Poulson – here it is – actually describes the route taken by the van. If you plot the course of the van on Google Maps, to be sure, it looks rather meandering, as if the moving men were aware of the two reporters on their tail and were trying to shake them off.

Fortunately, the police intervened. Perhaps the moving men alerted them to the problem. In any event, a motorcycle cop pulled over the reporters’ car. Poulsen is snide about it, describing the intervention sarcastically as belejligt – meaning “timely” or “convenient.” Poulsen is obviously indignant about the injustice of it all. “Without any justification, the driver was asked to show his driver’s license, even as they could see the moving van disappear over the horizon. After a few minutes the officer returned and said that everything was in order and that they could drive on.”

The reporters did so – but the cop followed close behind. After a short while he pulled them over a second time and “said in a not particularly convincing manner that he would like to see the driver’s license again, because ‘We can see that it’s been used in some connection or other, so we should double-check it.’” Another five minutes or so went by. Then the cop came back with the license, pronounced again that everything was in order, and told the reporters that they were free to continue on their way.

“The two stops,” Poulsen writes with what certainly reads like righteous indignation, “had now detained Ekstra Bladet‘s reporters for over ten minutes, and the distinctively green moving van was now far over the hills.”

Breathtaking.

It’s plain as day that Poulsen and his colleague were fully prepared to follow that van all the way to its destination, take a picture, and print the address – which would, of course, have been exceedingly helpful to anyone planning to make a second attempt on Hedegaard’s life, and would utterly have defeated the entire purpose of his move.

The very idea of following that van with the intention of revealing Hedegaard’s new address is beyond vile. It is a profoundly mischievous and potentially deadly act. Yet Poulsen seems incapable of imagining that he is doing anything remotely inappropriate. The tone of his article is that of a citizen – and member of the fourth estate – who has been deeply wronged by the law-enforcement establishment, in league with, and doing the bidding of, a racist, Islamophobic Enemy of the People. The clear implication of Poulsen’s article is that the police officer’s conduct was thoroughly unacceptable – that he had far exceeded his legitimate duties – and that any reasonable newspaper reader will feel the same way.

I was, as I say, thrown by Poulsen’s article. I shouldn’t have been. The unblushing zeal with which Norwegian journalists, in the wake of the Breivik atrocities, sought to link honest critics of Islam with a mass murderer provided a definitive demonstration of just how hostile many members of their profession are toward those of us who strive to tell the not-so-pacific truth about the Religion of Peace. Given what happened post-Breivik, it shouldn’t be surprising that a member of the mainstream media, whether in Norway or Denmark or anywhere else in Europe or North America, would be ready, willing, and eager to report in detail the movements of a van bearing the household goods of a septuagenarian fleeing his home because jihadists are out to murder him. Out to murder him, note well, because he – unlike the cowardly so-called journalists trailing the van – has the courage to speak the truth.

Poulson’s article closes with a simple statement: “Lars Hedegaard did not wish to speak to Ekstra Bladet.dk about his change of address.” No kidding! All I can say is, good for the Danish police, and shame on Poulsen and Ekstra Bladet.

The Culture War Needs to Be Fought

Because cultural change precedes political change, and the Left is currently winning on both fronts, we cannot afford to surrender to it on the culture wars, which include the homosexualist agenda of gay marriage and adoption.

It is true that the anti-Islam coalition is broader than the one against cultural Marxism, and includes homosexualists in it, but the latter are unreliable allies. They are against Islam not because they understand or care about the threat Islam represents to the West, but simply because they are only concerned about their own immediate interest, which is the normalization of homosexuality.

For that reason, because they do not think of the far-reaching consequences of the Islamization of the West, homosexualists are anti-Christianity as well as anti-Islam.

By demanding marriage and adoption for gays, homosexual activists know that they can reach and influence the new generations into their way of thinking.

The number one leader of the UK LGBT movement Peter Tatchell (who incidentally advocates lowering the age of consent, repeatedly defended man-boy sex, supported relaxation of laws against pornography "arguing that porn can have some social benefits, and he has criticised what he calls the body-shame phobia against nudism, suggesting that nudity may be natural and healthy for society") publicly says that, without repression of homosexuality and what he calls "heterosexual proselytising", everyone or nearly everyone in society would be bisexual:

Q: What's the difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex? A: A few inches of flesh...

If homosexual desire is this widespread in a homophobic society, imagine how much more common it would be in a gay-positive culture. With the cultural taboos removed, nearly everyone would savour its delights.

That's where they want all of us to get to.

I wonder how many other "delights" Tatchell has in store for us, once the new situation of the "cultural taboos removed" will give him free rein to imagine and publicly profess support for more of them.

I suspect that many people who support or at least do not oppose same-sex marriage are not aware of the long-term goals of the LGBT movement, and of how its goals are incompatible with those of the majority of the people.

Cultural Change Comes Before Political Change

Assault on the Culture from DHFC on Vimeo.


The Left is winning politically because it has won culturally.

The brilliant Antonio Gramsci, who co-founded the Italian Communist Party in 1921, developed his theory of hegemony: before there could be any radical change or revolution, there had to be first a total change in and control of the culture, so that the new, emerging dominant ideas would lead to the poltical revolution.

The Left has put that into practice, getting control of the media, universities, film industry (particularly Hollywood), education and entertainment sectors and in so doing giving rise to new generations with different ideas.

The real conservatives now must take back the culture or create a parallel one to reach the future generations.

Winning the Culture War —- And the Next Generation, from FrontPage Magazine:

Editor’s note: Below is the video of the panel discussion “Assault on the Culture,” featured at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the discussion follows.

Mark Tapson: As your mutual friend, the late great Andrew Breitbart, was fond of pointing out, politics flows downstream from culture. And the results of the last election confirm that. Conservatives lost last November in the political arena because for decades the radical Left has laid the groundwork for it in the cultural arena.

There’s no way the radical and insubstantial Barack Obama would ever have been taken seriously as a presidential candidate, much less be elected to two terms in the White House, if the Left had not previously and successfully infiltrated the key cultural arenas — education, the news media and entertainment — and spent decades indoctrinating generations. Our task now is to retake the culture or create a parallel one, deprogram that indoctrination, and seduce subsequent generations to a renewed vision of American exceptionalism.

So, gentlemen, what are the symptoms of the assault on the culture? And what is the cure?

We’ll begin with Ron.

Ron Radosh: As the moderator mentioned — I started out, as David did, as a young Marxist. And let me take a page from Marx. Just [as] people have learned that the Left organizes around the Alinsky playbook, here’s another leftist we can learn something from — the brilliant Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who developed a theory of hegemony. He argued that before there could be any radical change or revolution, which is what he desired, there had to be first a total change in and control of the culture, so that the dominant ideas that would emerge would be those that would lead to the potential for revolutionary action.

He was really onto something. He realized correctly that you had to wage what he called, in his Marxist terminology, a war of position to demand and create hegemonic control of the culture, so that the majority of people think alike and then would be ripe for and become vehicles for creating a revolution.

Well, the problem is, in this country — to make it very simple — that even if we win elections — and we are winning it in state and local level, but not in the national level — even if we win elections, the culture is at present controlled by the political Left. Have no doubts about that.

The first thing — look at the polls and the studies that have been done in the past year. I meant to bring it with me, but I can just mention it without reading through what this professor found out, from a very finely tuned study. He studied the majority of liberal arts universities and colleges in the United States. And he found out that almost 80, 90 percent of the faculty define themselves as liberal or radical and on the left. And you can be sure that in the humanities — history, philosophy, political theory — the professors there are almost entirely on the left.

Undoubtedly you’ve all seen the recent studies of how many faculty members in the major Ivy universities gave to the Romney campaign. They looked at Harvard and Princeton and Yale. And I think at Harvard, everybody gave — 98, 99 percent gave to Obama. And there were, I think, two faculty members — two people employed by Harvard — who gave to Romney; one was a janitor.

(Laughter)

So, this is the reality we’re facing.

Now, I was supposed to talk — I’ve been on a one-man campaign. And instead of giving you everything I said — because there’s just no time — all you have to do is blog, put it on Google — Ron Radosh on Oliver Stone. And you will have maybe 10 recent articles come up. And I’ve been on a one-man campaign against what I think is a major turning point in the culture. Starting a few months ago, on the Showtime Network owned by CBS, Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick have put together a 10-part documentary series that is now at an end, but you can still watch it on-demand. And that is now going to be shown throughout our high schools and colleges — Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States.”

If you have seen any of it — and I don’t know how many of you want to be masochists and watch it — it is horrendous. It is — and I am not exaggerating — the exact KGB Soviet propaganda history of the United States as it was written by the KGB in the 1950s and ’60s.

Indeed, when I was growing up, the first book that said the United States was the evil power in the world and responsible for the then-ongoing Cold War was a little-known book by a Communist — who was one of the Communist Party members of the United States who infiltrated the OSS during the war and was a top officer in the OSS — a man named Carl Marzani, who was a secret member of the Communist Party and later, we found out, paid by the KGB, and actually a paid agent of theirs — he published a book subsidized by the KGB — this is how he got the money to publish independently — called “We Can Be Friends.”

And that book outlined the theory that the United States — there could’ve been peace with the Soviet Union if the United States had done what Stalin wants. Because Stalin was a good guy. Truman, who then President, was a fascist, which –

(Laughter)

You have to remember, the Communists in America called Harry Truman a fascist. Not even a conservative Republican, but a fascist — creating a fascist America. And he outlined the theory in this book.

And, lo and behold — I watched Oliver Stone’s first five episodes; I couldn’t go beyond that. I know what’s in them; I read the [synopsis] in David Horowitz’s FrontPage. I’m not going to torture myself that much. But I watched the first five. It was exactly the argument, with the same quotations and the same facts, in the same order, as this 1952 book by this Communist KGB agent.

And they are — you have to realize this is a turning point. If something like this had been produced and tried to be shown when John F. Kennedy was President, or in the years after Kennedy — even, I think, when Bill Clinton was President — first they would not have been able to get it aired in a major network. It would’ve been attacked all over as outright distortions of history, as Communist propaganda, as an embarrassment.

What has happened? Just the reverse. They have been touring — up to the present, and still going on every weekend — college after college in the United States, where they speak to thousands of students, show them one episode, and then talk and answer questions. They are getting phenomenal attention. Both of them have been on every major TV and radio talk show you can think of, including, I’m sorry to say, Mike Huckabee, who sang their praises and thanked them for doing such a wonderful job in educating our students in the history of the United States. Either Mike Huckabee is dumb or he just got something handed to him by his staff and didn’t really watch it.

So this is what we’re against. Let me just give you one brief example, because I only have two minutes left. The hero of the Stone TV series is the late Vice President — before that Secretary of Commerce — Vice President and then Secretary of Commerce, who Truman fired for being an appeaser of the Soviets, Henry A. Wallace. The theory of their TV show is that had Henry A. Wallace successfully become President, there would’ve been no Cold War, we would’ve had peace with Russia, we would’ve had total income redistribution, we would have an equitable, fair, social democratic America. And everything would’ve been roses. As it was, this was failed because of the political bosses in the rightwing corporations who fought Wallace and stymied him.

Well, who was Henry Wallace? He was a naïve, classic dupe. And just to give you the one incident that says it all — when he was Secretary of Commerce, still in the President’s cabinet, he had a secret meeting with the head of the KGB, the KGB station chief in Washington, DC. And he went to see Anatoly Gorsky. And he said to him — you know, we’re having an internal battle in the administration. Truman and all these advisors around him want to get tough with the Russians, they want to stand up to Stalin. Can you help me out and give us support and ammunition, so we can defeat these anti-Soviet forces?

And he goes to the KGB station chief to ask for help in settling an internal administration dispute, while he’s in the President’s cabinet. The man, in other words, was either a fool or a traitor, or just a total idiot. Or maybe all three.

And this is the man that students and people in America are being told, week by week, is the unsung hero who should’ve been the President of the United States instead of all the reactionaries who followed him.

We have a fight to wage. It’s a fight to change the culture, to change the way the truth about our past is taught. It’s something that has to be carried out. It is extremely important. And if not, you’re going to see a whole new generation mis-educated, as Stone and Kuznick are doing now, with the most vile, old kind of Communist propaganda. And that will be what they think of the United States. They will come out learning the evil power in the world is the United States. And just as we should’ve appeased the Soviets then, we have to now reach out and honor the wishes of the Islamists who have something to say.

I learned yesterday, the great Iranian-American filmmaker who did — what’s the name of the movie about the woman who was stoned? Stoning of Soraya — he told me yesterday that he spoke to Stone and Kuznick, and they saw his movie. And Stone and Kuznick said to him, to Cyrus — you know, your film is very dangerous, because it would have the effect of turning the American people against radical Islam.

(Laughter)

And he then said to them — what, you’re not against the stoning of women? He said — well, that’s their culture, and who are we to oppose it?

Now, that’s the people we’re dealing with. If we don’t fight this, and develop films like Cyrus’s movie — why can’t we develop a counter-series about the history of the United States to sell to HBO or Showtime that tells that truth about our past, rather than the kind of stuff they’re showing now?

And Howard Zinn was on Fox with his special before he died. Now we have Stone. This could not have happened years ago. These guys would never have got contracts for major television time. And this is a crisis that this has been received well. Look at the rave review it got in the Washington Post. This says something about our culture. It’s a dangerous time, and we have to oppose it.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Keep reading, it's a very long article.



Poll: US Catholics Greatly Admire Benedict XVI

A poll just published reveals that American Catholics recognize the Holy Father Benedict XVI's positive impact on the Church, the world and their personal lives.

I am very happy that US Catholics do not believe all the media lies about the Catholic Church and the Pope, and that this marginalized, besieged, bashed and discriminated group, whose symbols are constantly degraded and ideas slandered and vilified - as opposed to fairly discussed - maintains a fighting spirit.

From Zenit:

Just a week after Benedict XVI's resignation, a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll finds that American Catholics give high marks to the Pope Emeritus.

More than three quarters of Catholics (77%) and more than 8 in 10 practicing Catholics (82%) have a very positive or positive impression of Pope Benedict XVI’s years as pope.

American Catholics have very positive views on Pope Benedict’s impact on their lives, the direction of the Church, and the moral direction of the world.

Nearly 7 in 10 Catholics (68 percent) and more than three quarters of practicing Catholics (77 percent) say Pope Benedict had a “very positive” or “positive” impact on their lives. Only 13% of Catholics and 12% of practicing Catholics saw a negative impact.

Additionally, 70 percent of Catholics and 75 percent of practicing Catholics believe he had a “very positive” or “positive” impact on the direction of the Catholic Church. Only about two in 10 said his impact was negative or very negative (21 percent and 19 percent respectively).

About two thirds of Catholics (65 percent) and about 7 in 10 practicing Catholics (69 percent) said he had a “very positive” or “positive” impact on the moral direction of the world. Fewer than a quarter (23 and 22 percent respectively) disagreed and saw his impact as negative or very negative.

Pope Benedict’s use of Twitter was also very popular among Catholics. Two-thirds of Catholics and practicing Catholics (67 percent and 66 percent respectively), said they “liked the idea” of the pope using Twitter to communicate. Only a quarter of each group disagreed (25 percent for Catholics and practicing Catholics).

Overall, nearly 7 in 10 Catholics (69 percent) and three quarters of practicing Catholics (75 percent) have a very favorable or favorable view of Pope Benedict XVI. By contrast, only 16 percent of Catholics (and 14 percent of practicing Catholics) have an unfavorable view.

“The data indicates clearly that American Catholics have a deep respect for Pope Benedict XVI and a great appreciation for his pontificate,” said Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. “That so many felt he had a positive impact on their lives, their Church and their world speaks volumes to the good that he was able to do as pope.”

The findings come just days after the Cardinals – gathered in Rome to elect the new pope – sent the Pope Emeritus a note of gratitude for his Petrine ministry and “example of generous pastoral care for the good of the Church and of the world."

The national survey of 2,000 American adults including 515 Catholics was conducted from March 2 through 5. The margin of error for Catholics is +/- 4.3 percentage points.

Sign the Petition to Nominate Ugandan Pastor Umar Mulinde for the Nobel Peace Prize

Uganda's Pastor Umar Mulinde had the incredible courage to convert from Islam to Christianity, and even to become a Christian minister, well knowing the mortal risk he was taking.

Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostates, those who leave Islam.

This is how Islam has conquered peoples and maintained its position: through the sword, waging war against infidels and beheading apostates.

If there were no death penalty for apostasy, there would be no Islam. This is what cleric and prominent leader of the (now the West's ally) Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf al-Qaradawi says, on video: "If they left apostasy (rida) alone, there wouldn’t have been any Islam. Islam would have been finished right after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)".

Muslims in Uganda, who represent only 13 percent of the population, are agitating for Shariah law to be established in Uganda. Mulinde and his supporters worry that such an action will result in the oppression of women and non-Muslims in Uganda, just as it has in Nigeria.

In his campaign to prevent the introduction of Sharia into Uganda, Pastor Umar helped organize a petition that received more than 36,000 signatures. Mulinde is also a potent supporter of Israel. He filled a stadium with 5,000 supporters of Israel a few years back.

These actions did not go unnoticed by the Islamists in Uganda. On Dec. 24, 2011, a group of radical Muslims threw acid on his face and back in an attempt to kill him. The attack left him alive, but horribly disfigured. Upon learning that he survived the attack, his attackers and their supporters sent letters to his church stating that they wish the attack had resulted in his death.

The acid attack was not the first attempt on Mulinde’s life that he’s miraculously survived. He’s been shot at and poisoned...

The ideology that motivated the acid attack he endured on Christmas Eve in 2011 is the same used to justify suicide attacks against Israel during the Second Intifada and the rocket attacks that took place over the past few days. Christians in Uganda are starting to wake up to the fact that many in the West have failed to understand the threat presented by Islamic imperialism.

“What the West is denying they will realize when it has come upon them,” he said.

If somebody deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, it is Pastor Umar Mulinde. Giving it to Barack Hussein Obama has made a mockery of this honour; let us re-establish its true value.

As over 700 people so far, including me, have done, please sign the petition to Nominate Umar Mulinde for the Nobel Peace Prize here.