It was in an interview on “Talk Back with Chuck Wilder” that Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, explained that bureaucratic changes within the Army are endangering wounded soldiers.

Brady is the author of “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Vietnam.”

“The focus is not on the patient,” he explained, noting that increased emphasis has been placed on risk assessment, command and control, and other factors that “Dust Off” pilots in Vietnam “had not even heard of.”

During the Vietnam War, helicopter rescue pilots had autonomy to accept missions themselves and determine the level of risk. Even though Brady has “talked to as many people as I can get to,” it appears that risk-averse policies of rear-echelon commanders are more important than the opinions of pilots.

“They took control of a medical service away from doctors and gave it to aviation staff officers,” he said.

Consequently, before a rescue operation can be launched, the mission must be approved by someone who is not even on the battlefield. Brady explained a patient’s survival depends on the decision of someone who is in no position to actually observe his condition.

Furthermore, the missions are launched using an unnecessary number of helicopters and gunships, meaning that the Army actually is providing less efficient and effective rescue operations with “four engines, compared to what we used to do with one.”

Brady recounted an especially hurtful story of how an American soldier turned his back on him when he learned the general was a “Dust Off” pilot, mistakenly associating him with the modern program that leaves soldiers wounded on the battlefield until it is too late.

As an example, Brady told a story from Afghanistan where a wounded American soldier was trapped on a mountainside, while the enemy was on the other side of the mountain. A simple rescue mission was not approved until the next morning.

The general noted that helicopter pilots are as able as ever to participate in rapid rescue efforts, but they are hamstrung by official guidelines that prevent them from acting. Host Wilder observed that it sounds similar to the “red tape” of government regulation.

In contrast, “Dust Off” operations during the Vietnam War were regarded as primarily a medical service, and its pilots held to a strict code that put patients first. Maj. Charles Kelly, regarded as the father of “Dust Off,” exemplified the standard.

Kelly died when he refused to leave a hot landing zone, saying he would only escape “When I have your wounded.” Soon after that, he was shot and killed.

Wilder explored Brady’s actions as leader of the 54th Medical Detachment, drawing some acknowledgement of Brady’s accomplishments out of the modest general. The unit rescued more than 21,000 wounded in 10 months.

When Brady stated that his unit found a way to fly in zero visibility fog, Wilder corrected him and stated that it was Brady personally who discovered the technique of flying into the fog sideways to gain the tiny visibility needed to determine direction.

Brady credited his faith in God with his survival in combat and his ability to save so many lives.

“My faith was a substitute for fear,” he said.

Wilder commented, “It ought to be a movie, it ought to be a book” before remembering, “it is a book!”

“Dead Men Flying” by Brady has been reissued by WND Books and is available now in a new edition.

Brady’s coauthor is his daughter, Capt. Meghan Brady Smith, an Iraq war veteran who was awarded the Bronze Star.

And now WND Books is presenting a new edition of his riveting and inspiring tale of survival with “Scars and Stripes,” to be published on October 9, 2012.

McDaniel’s testimony recounts the ordeal of an American airman who took his faith for granted, but was forced to rediscover it in the midst of unimaginable suffering.

McDaniel was raised as a Christian and attended a Christian college. While he believed in God and had a nominal faith, he writes, “I wasn’t sure what I had that would qualify me for title ‘Christian.’”

He admits that he attended the Baptist school of Campbell Junior College for athletics, not religion, but knew that there was something deeper that was missing.

McDaniel gave his life to Christ after meeting his future wife, Dorothy Howard. Her father was a Baptist minister and after spending time with the two of them, McDaniel realized what they had was “good as gold.” He walked forward to the altar to make his real commitment as a Christian but doesn’t remember much of a “big splash” after that.

It was only later, in his darkest moments, that McDaniel learned “the totality of what it was all about to be in Him.”

On May 19, 1967, McDaniel and his A-6 jet were shut down over North Vietnam. He ejected and took refuge in a tree, counting on a quick rescue. McDaniel prayed for deliverance, noting, “When I stopped to think about it, I couldn’t remember when I had to pray for anything really crucial like this.”

His hopes soared when American pilots spotted his parachute and reported that rescue helicopters would be at his location within minutes.

Read the story of the first-person experience in North Vietnam’s Hanoi Hilton prison camp, in Red McDaniel’s “Scars and Stripes.”

But the rescue didn’t come. It its place was a mob of North Vietnamese soldiers and civilians who drove him to Hanoi, kicking and screaming at him along the way.

Imprisoned in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, he was thrown into a windowless, cockroach-infested cell. Instead of medical treatment or even the opportunity for sleep, McDaniel was immediately tortured. His wrists were bound with ropes and his shoulders almost ripped out of his body as his Communist interrogators screamed questions at him.

After less than a week in captivity, McDaniel had already lost the use of his right hand and had nothing else to look forward to than more torture. When the North Vietnamese arrived instead of the expected rescue, McDaniel admitted, “My faith in God had taken a nose dive.”

Over the next few months, McDaniel was able to establish tentative contact with other American prisoners, despite severe threats of retribution. After even brief contact, he was punished with solitary confinement in absolute darkness, unable to move or sleep.

As the torture continued, McDaniel confronted the reality that death could come at any moment. Despite his Christian past, he knew that because of his current crisis of faith, “there was something, some part of my spiritual life not yet complete… if I had to face tomorrow in the torture room, when death would not come, when the pain would be so bad that death would be easier, would I smile then?”

In May 1969, two Americans prisoners escaped and the Vietnamese “in a kind of rage,” increased their torture beyond anything McDaniel had experienced before.

McDaniel repeatedly and systematically was beaten and forced to hold his arms in impossible positions. If the arms relaxed for even a moment, he was struck with a fan belt. His knees became infected from kneeling on them for days at a time and the skin ripped away from where it was bound with leg irons.

For more than six days, McDaniel was denied any sleep. Dirty rags were shoved down his throat to cut off air. His arm was broken, and he was given repeated electric shocks. Eventually, McDaniel thought to himself death would be welcome.

Suddenly, amidst all of the pain, McDaniel realized that “I had lived on the ‘good times’ of Christianity, but I had never been tested by pain, as He had been, and the dimension missing in my life was tied directly to that.”

At his lowest possible moment, McDaniel prayed. “I knew if He didn’t do something, reveal something of Himself to me, I could not make it. And, in my feeble way again, I said, ‘Lord… it’s all Yours… whatever this means, whatever it is supposed to accomplish in me, whatever You have in mind now with all of this, it’s all Yours…’”

Only a minute after he prayed that desperate cry, McDaniel “became aware that the ropes were being taken off my arms.”

Suddenly, McDaniel said, “I was alone, all the grim horrors of the past days and nights still with me, but now I had a moment of peace. I didn’t know how to absorb the immensity of the moment, the sheer dimension of it.”

McDaniel lay at peace, “drawing on that aura of the presence of God.”

McDaniel’s ordeal was not over. He remained in prison until 1973. There were other beatings, and other torture sessions. However, he knew that “God was not far outside this hell. If I had to go on with this nightmare, then I was sure He was with me. Nothing else mattered.”

Incredibly, after years of torture and separation from his family, McDaniel writes that there is a part of him that is even grateful for the experience.

Noting that the Apostle Paul wrote that nothing could separate people from the love of God, McDaniel reflects, “The darkness of loneliness and pain was worth it all to enter into the knowledge of that fantastic truth.”

Read the story of the first-person experience in North Vietnam’s Hanoi Hilton prison camp, in Red McDaniel’s “Scars and Stripes.”

WND books is reissuing “Dead Men Flying – Victory in Viet Nam, The Legend of Dust Off: America’s Battlefield Angels,” by Gen. Patrick Henry Brady and his daughter, Capt. Meghan Brady Smith.

Gen. Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, contends that America’s greatest victory in Vietnam was humanitarianism.

As commander of the 54th Medical Detachment, Gen. Brady led his unit as it rescued over 21,000 wounded – enemy and friendly – in 10 months, while sustaining injuries that resulted in 26 Purple Hearts.

It’s a story that Gen. Brady says has been all but neglected as many historians and pundits seem determined to view the Vietnam War as a terrible American crime.

By contrast, Brady provides many examples of how American servicemen and medical personnel risked their lives to care for the Vietnamese people. They also brought new technology and technical know-how to win the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese civilians, including introducing basic dentistry and solving protein deficiencies among the children.

Brady also tells the forgotten story of America’s indigenous allies in Vietnam, including the Montagnards, a fierce warrior society that lost half of its adult male population in support of the American effort in Vietnam.

Most importantly, Brady tells the story of “Dust Off,” the helicopter rescue program that achieved legendary status during the Vietnam War because of the willingness of pilots to prioritize rapid reaction time even in the face of extreme danger.

Maj. Charles Kelly, the almost mythical father of “Dust Off,” set the example of the heroic creed of the air ambulance program. Kelly had to fight both on and off the battlefield to secure the position of “Dust Off” as an independent and autonomous unit with its own moral code that put patient survival first.

Kelly died in combat after flying into thick enemy fire. His last words, “When I have your wounded,” set the example for everyone who was to follow.

Brady and his fellow pilots spent the remainder of the war trying to live up to Kelly’s standards. Brady himself personally rescued over 5,000 wounded in over 2,000 combat missions.

He credits his survival in the war to God.

He says, “I cannot emphasize enough the role my faith played in any success I have had.”

When flying helicopters into almost zero visibility, with death all around, Brady says “God’s good will” was indispensable in coming out alive on the other side.

Unfortunately, Brady’s thrilling tale of courage and faith in Vietnam has more troubling modern implications. He contends that the U.S. Army has forgotten lessons that so many died for.

“I am afraid that Charles Kelly is turning over in his gave,” writes Brady.

The Army has placed the “Dust Off” mission under the control of Combat Arms Aviation. This means that “Dust Off” operations have lost their autonomy and are subject to a torturous approval process before missions can be launched.

According to Brady, risk analysis is prioritized above reaction time and the “Golden Hour” that is critical to the survival rate of wounded soldiers. Most importantly, the essential creed of “Dust Off” is being compromised. Current pilots see the problems but are afraid of speaking out because of repercussions.

For example, a wounded soldier was left overnight in the cold on a mountain in Afghanistan, even though the enemy was on the other side. Even relatively safe rescue missions are not being approved. “Dust Off” helicopters are also the oldest in the fleet with potentially deadly consequences for troops.

Brady contends that the main problem are “obsessive command and control issues and ignorance among the ASO (Aviation Staff Officers); the lack of a champion and leadership in the Medical Corps are contributing favors.”

High ranking officials, including four-star generals and senators, have heard the about problems but seem unwilling to do anything that will actually solve them, he said.

Brady calls for a return to the founding principles of “Dust Off,” with air ambulance operations prioritizing saving patients and wounded soldiers above everything else, and with specialized pilots and equipment wholly dedicated to a medical mission.

“Dead Men Flying” is not just a revisionist look at the Vietnam War. It’s a combat thriller, a testimony to the power of faith, and a powerful challenge to the political and military leadership of the United States that is repeating the mistakes of the past.

Order your copy of “Dead Men Flying” now.

The new NBC television show “Revolution” portrays life in the former United States 15 years after an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, disables all electronics. Society collapses almost instantly, and the country devolves into a collection of mutually hostile self-styled militias, private armies and warring tribes.

Former members of the Marine Corps become warlords. Google executives become rifle-toting soldiers. Insurance salesmen transform into militia members.

Basic necessities that Americans take for granted, such as widely available food and clean water, become inaccessible as millions die from starvation, disease or widespread violence.

The premise of the show sounds fantastic. However, as national security expert F. Michael Maloof points out in his upcoming book, “A Nation Forsaken,” the show may actually downplay the threat.

An EMP is caused by an explosion of charged particles, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon in high altitude. The resulting wave wipes out electronics throughout the affected area.

Because of American society’s reliance on computers and electronic equipment, this would mean that financial, medical, security and logistical systems would fail simultaneously. The result could be a wholesale breakdown of civil society.

Prominent political leaders, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., have warned for years about the danger posed by EMP.

But media outlets such as the New York Times have disparaged these views and downplayed the EMP threat, characterizing it as improbable science fiction. As Maloof writes in “A Nation Forsaken,” media attention to the threat is downplayed only when preparation efforts are advocated by conservatives.

In contrast, the producers of “Revolution” seem to take the threat seriously, noting, “We did our homework and came up with something that’s actually plausible.”

An EMP attack does not require an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, to be effective. A short-range rocket launched from a ship would be sufficient to knock out the electric grid of most of the United States.

Maloof points out that North Korea already has this capability and Iran is developing it. Countries such as Russia and China already could make such an event happen.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “The result of a massive EMP event could be devastating. Communications would collapse, transportation would halt, and electrical power would simply be nonexistent. Not even a global humanitarian effort would be enough to keep hundreds of millions of Americans from death by starvation, exposure, or lack of medicine.”

Despite the threat, Maloof writes that the federal government is ignoring the necessary steps needed to defend against such an attack.

Critical infrastructure can be hardened to defend against the effects of an EMP attack. The investment needed is relatively modest, especially when compared to the incalculable human and financial costs of a successful EMP attack against the United States. However, attempts to mandate protection for critical infrastructure have failed.

“Revolution” may just be a television show but the effects of an EMP attack are very real, Maloof warned. Even more concerning is the possibility of a “natural” EMP caused by increased solar activity. Massive solar flares can disrupt electronic systems in the same way as an EMP – and there are predictions for increased solar activity in 2013.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Maloof said, “One of the takeaways from ‘Revolution’ is how the existing security and political systems all failed. People were left completely on their own. I’m afraid that’s what is happening today in regards to what is an absolutely critical security issue.”

“A Nation Forsaken,” coming out in a few months, doesn’t merely describe the effects of an EMP attack. It also provides a checklist for how individual families can prepare themselves for the day when the lights go out for good.

Maloof observes, “The characters of ‘Revolution’ would have had an easier time of it if they had just read my book!”

This is especially true in our foreign policy. As American conservatives lurch from defeat to defeat on cultural and economic issues, they seem to become more militant and aggressive against other countries, even when it means attacking the people on our side. So it was that the American right leapt to the defense of the P—y Riot activists because it meant attacking the regime of Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Generally, when the likes of the Huffington Post are telling me I should be outraged about something, I tend to be suspicious.

The “Western” (actually anti-Western) media reported that these plucky activists sang a pro-democracy song. Actually, in February, they burst into the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, which had been destroyed by the Communists and rebuilt in the 1990s, disrupted services and screamed the following:

Holy s—, s—, Lord’s s—!

B—-, you better believed in God

Other activities by the group include public orgies, shoving chicken into their vaginas at a supermarket and overturning police cars (with officers inside). These are the kinds of things we might expect at Occupy Wall Street, except I think those protesters might actually have something to say. Other actions by the group’s supporters, such as topless women cutting down a cross at a monument for victims of Communism in Ukraine, speak for themselves.

American conservatives have rushed to defend the group. John O’Sullivan at National Review called them “virtuous as well as brave” and hailed them as Christian martyrs. Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller suggested Putin was “scared of girls,” while Sam Sorbo hailed their activism as something for Americans to aspire to because “political correctness has made many people too shy.”

This is literally the opposite of the truth. A group claiming to support P—y Riot actually performed an identical action in Western Europe – specifically in the cathedral at Cologne, Germany. Not surprisingly, even in countries free of tsarist despotism, randomly breaking into places of worship and shrieking is frowned upon, and the glorious democracy of Germany is looking to sentence the protesters to three years in prison – one more than what their heroes received in Russia. One hastens to add there is far less media attention.

As for the critiques by American conservatives, O’Sullivan should note there are plenty of nations where church and state are united – such as Great Britain. Of course, since the archbishop of Canterbury endorses Shariah law, the Church of England is a far less popular target for the likes of the Huffington Post. Regarding free speech, let’s not pretend that Europe is free. After all, people have been imprisoned for what they say on Twitter, well respected journalists have been put on trial for what they say in books, and political parties with vast public support and democratically elected officials have been banned. Of course, those countries in Europe are the United Kingdom, France and Belgium, respectively.

Putin may or may not be “scared of girls,” but movement conservatives are terrified of liberals posting mean things about them if they actually touch controversial issues like immigration or traditional marriage. It’s far easier to sneer at bearded clerics or elderly babushkas with the temerity to want to worship without having obscenities screamed at them. We don’t want to get the Huffington Post upset at us.

As far as political correctness, we have places where the likes of P—y Riot are in charge – they are called college campuses. The band’s ideology is typically boring leftism, which American conservatives seem determined to misinterpret. The reason is because it might get in the way of bashing Russia. Romney has identified Russia as America’s No. 1 “geopolitical foe,” and his advisers still think we are fighting the Soviet Union.

I can certainly understand Cold War nostalgia and am as guilty as anyone else on the right of enjoying “Red Dawn” a little too much. However, to think modern Russia is some kind of international base for anti-American leftism is as farfetched as the “Red Dawn” remake with a North Korean invasion.

Russia is targeted precisely because it is conservative. The vast majority of Russians were outraged at P—y Riot’s stunt. As Putin himself noted, there’s a reason they didn’t target a mosque. The real audience was the left-wing American and European media, which never misses an opportunity to promote degeneracy when it is directed at Christian or Western targets.

Putin is not perfect, and Russia is certainly corrupt, though it was far worse before Putin’s takeover. Putin is simply a Russian nationalist, doing his best to strengthen his own country’s interests. Perhaps used to our own leaders deliberately sabotaging us, this may appear threatening to Americans. If anything, Putin has not gone far enough, making concessions to Islamists in a shortsighted attempt to try to hang on to Russia’s Muslim southern territories.

It’s probably not surprising that American conservatism has been reduced to defending free speech only for leftists and concealing its own powerlessness with swaggering bellicosity against media-approved enemies. The problem is that’s not where the enemy is anymore.

There actually is an imperialist, left-wing power that interferes with other countries. It pushes mass Muslim immigration on Western nations. It tries to displace traditional values in Christian countries. It hands over former American allies to the Muslim Brotherhood. It supports progressive activist organizations with millions of taxpayer dollars in collusion with far-left activists like George Soros. That country is the United States.

American conservatives should be angry about the subversion of their own country, not following the left’s orders yet again by bellowing attacks against the Third Rome.

Amazon.com’s “Election Heat Map 2012″ shows Americans are buying many more “red” books, with a Republican perspective, than “blue” books, with a Democratic perspective, from the Internet retail giant.

Aaron Klein’s and Brenda Elliot’s new New York Times bestselling book, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed,”  is near the top of  Amazon’s “red” book sales lists. The hardcover and Kindle editions of  have moved into the No. 2 and No. 3 positions, respectively.

“Fool Me Twice” is beating other heavily promoted conservative books, including Dinesh D’Souza’s “Obama’s America,” Steve Forbes’ “Freedom Manifesto” and Paul Kengor’s “The Communist.”

The book is continuing to climb up the Amazon rankings, reaching a high of No. 9 of all books sold and the No. 1 and No. 2 slots in the “Economic Policy” and “Communism & Socialism” categories.

The book is outselling its counterpart on liberal economic policy, Michael Grunwald’s “The New New Deal,” a widely promoted defense of the Obama stimulus plan. Klein’s and Elliott’s book, in contrast, describes in detail how Obama plans to expand federal spending and dwarf the stimulus spending of his first term if he is re-elected.

Amazon acknowledges books are not votes, and “a map of book purchases can reflect curiosity as much as commitment, but we hope our 2012 Election Heat Map will provide one way to follow the changing political conversations across the country during this election season.”

The report says the company takes the top-selling political books and categorizes them as “red,” “blue” or neutral.

“We classify books as red or blue if they have a political leaning made evident in book promotion material and/or customer classification, such as tags. We compute percentages, updated daily, for each state and the U.S. by comparing the 250 best-selling blue books during the time period against the 250 best-selling red books during the same time period, including new book launches. If the same book title has multiple formats (paperback, Kindle books and Audible Audio), each format has a separate sales calculation. The list only includes paid, not free Kindle books. All orders during the period are given equal weighting in the calculation. States with higher percentages of red or blue purchases are colored more darkly, and states with an even 50-50 split are colored neutral.”

Amazon notes that in recent years, news media have used color-coded maps for elections, with red representing Republican states and blue representing states favoring the Democratic Party.

Previously, the color code was the opposite.

According to the “Amazon Election Heat Map 2012,” conservative political books are outselling liberal titles in all but five states and the District of Columbia. A majority of 56 percent of Americans nationwide favor conservative books, reaching a high of 72 percent in Mississippi.

“Fool Me Twice” is averaging four out five stars in Amazon reviews, despite a concerted effort by liberals to give it a low rating. Klein and Elliott are also continuing their media tour, with Klein to appear on CNN on Friday.

America may have a Christian majority. The country’s heritage and institutions may be inseparable from Christianity. Many of the leading figures in our public life may even profess to be followers of Christ. None of this changes the fact that Christian Americans are losing the long struggle to define the country. More importantly, they will continue to lose as long as they pretend the country is still theirs.

Conservatives celebrated prematurely after the huge turnout of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. The “guilty as charged” Christian chain may have set sales records and homosexual protests may have fizzled, but this was only a tactical victory in a long struggle. Leftists and their supporters are already winning more strategic victories.

The first sign of things to come was the decision by Davidson College to suspend Chick-fil-A from operating on campus. The school stressed that there was no final decision but that they wanted more “student input” about building an “inclusive community.”

As a veteran college activist on controversial issues, take it from me that conservatives are outgunned on campus. At many colleges and universities, the only right-of-center group is the College Republicans, which of course is primarily interested in electing anyone who has an “R” next to his name. Leftists have a wide variety of ideological and political groups to utilize, as well as a vast network of nominally “apolitical” multicultural and sexual groups that receive large amounts of funding and official campus support.

Even the other right-of-center groups that do exist are not going to touch this issue. As reported in a recent story in the New York Times, campus conservatives mostly ignore social issues, while some libertarian groups even define homosexuality as central to their cause. While some of this is out of belief, much more is out of fear. There is a well-funded campus infrastructure in place to support progressive social beliefs, and there is nothing in support of social conservatives. It’s far easier – and safer – to limit activism to harmless quibbling about free trade.

The leftist counter-offensive will not be limited to Davidson. At least 30 other colleges have had petitions started to drive Chick-fil-A off campus. It has nothing to do with what the majority wants or even freedom of speech. The fact remains that the progressive left generally has a structural advantage in campus battles, and the campus right is generally interested in economic issues. A militant minority always triumphs against an apathetic majority, and I would not be surprised to see Chick-fil-A successfully purged from most campuses within the next year.

Even off campus, conservatives face structural disadvantages. Mitt Romney was notably silent about the issue, preferring to talk about the economy. This is probably because many of his most prominent financial backers are also backing referendums to legalize homosexual marriage in several states. Nor is this some kind of an exception – the most important group in intimidating the Republican legislature in New York into passing gay marriage were the rich Republican donors straight out of an Occupy parody about the 1 percent.

Conservatives and libertarians can take solace in rhetoric about “limited government” and “freedom of speech,” but the truth is more complicated. The hard reality is that what is and is not acceptable to say is a product of power, not free choice. Culture is a product as much as any plastic toy, the outcome of conflict and dialogue among educational, media, social and religious institutions. What Lenin called the “Commanding Heights of the Economy” are not nearly as important as the “Commanding Heights of the Culture,” and Christians and traditionalists need to realize they are all in enemy hands, especially on the campuses. The beliefs of a society don’t just develop organically – they are imposed.

This is why the left doesn’t win through open debate in the marketplace of ideas. It wins by cutting off access, funding and legitimacy from any groups or individuals that defy the egalitarian zeitgeist.

This is why, tactically, they are right to oppose Chick-fil-A and drive it off campuses. This is why they were correct to pressure business into dropping support for the American Legislative Exchange Council following the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman controversy. This is why conservatives ignore corporations like Wal-Mart, Facebook, Home Depot and News Corp. (parent company of Fox News) donating to the likes of Al Sharpton at their peril. This is why no matter how many referendums, primaries or general elections conservatives win, it never seems to change anything.

Unfortunately, progressives are right. By driving Chick-fil-A off campuses, by denying funds to pro-family groups, by making where you go to lunch a political decision, they are shaping the culture (and electorate) of the future. It’s uncomfortable to admit, but the personal is political, and whether it’s controlled by the government or not has little to do with it.

It’s bigger than the battle over marriage. Politics is about who, not what, and remaining neutral simply means that others will determine the kind of world you and your children will live in.

It doesn’t matter if the majority of Americans are Christians or conservatives or patriots – the people in charge are not.

The game is rigged. Flip over the table.

In a press conference in front of the council’s Washington headquarters, Perkins thanked political opponents who expressed their condolences after the attack by a man who had been volunteering at an LGBT center.

But the FRC chief challenged them “to go a step further.”

He also asked organizations that condemned the violence to “call for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe” led to the shooting.

Perkins identified the Southern Poverty Law Center as responsible for the atmosphere, stating that it gave suspected gunman Floyd Lee Corkins “a license to shoot.”

When challenged by reporters, Perkins expanded on his remarks and claimed that the SPLC’s designation of the Family Research Council as a “certified hate group … marginalizes individuals and organizations letting people feel free to go and do bodily harm to innocent people who are simply working and representing folks from all across this country.”

The SPLC labeled the Family Research Council a “hate group” in 2010, attributing to the organization the characteristics of groups such as Aryan Nations 88, the National Socialist Movement and the American Aryan Reich.

A number of conservative media and political figures, including Speaker of the House John Boehner and WND editor Joseph Farah, condemned the designation and expressed solidarity with the Family Research Council.

In response, Mark Potok, editor of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report, said Perkins’ comments were “outrageous” and repeated the charge that the Family Research Council is a “hate group,” because it “has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people.”

Potok also claimed that the SPLC condemns political violence from whatever source.

Perkins also addressed the repeatedly reported connection between Chick-fil-A and the Family Research Council. Perkins pointed out that the suspect was carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches as well as 50 rounds as ammunition, “which is not something you bring to a family picnic.”

Perkins noted that Chick-fil-A gave the organization $1,000 several years ago but had no other involvement. Homosexual activists have been attacking Chick-fil-A over the last few weeks because its owner, Dan Cathy, openly stated his support for traditional marriage.

Perkins also described the building’s operations manager, who also doubled with security duties in the front of the building, a “hero.” Leo Johnson was wounded in the attack and remains hospitalized.

In an earlier appearance on Fox News, Perkins described the scenario. Johnson was in the front of the building when a man entered with a gun and fired. There have been reports from authorities that the gunman aid he didn’t like FRC’s politics.

“Leo, despite being wounded, unarms the man and holds him,” Perkins said. “It was truly a heroic effort. The intentions of this man were clearly evil and [he] intended to do massive damage.”

He told the Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly he believed the attacker was “given a license to do that” by groups such as the SPLC, “because we defend the family and traditional Christianity.”

He confirmed, however, the attack he described as “terror” would not stop the group from continuing its ministry.

“It’s not going to work,” he said. “We’re not going anywhere.”

Washington Police Chief Cathy Lanier and FBI officials praised Johnson for preventing more bloodshed.

An FBI affidavit from Special Agent Garrett Nabors said a surveillance tape showed the suspect talking with Johnson, then pulling a gun and shooting him.

After being wounded, Johnson moved toward Corkins, wrestled the firearm away from Corkins and subdued him, the report said.

The Family Research Council was founded in 1983 by a group of evangelical leaders that included Dr. James Dobson. Today, under Perkins, the group works to support conservative Christian social issues, including traditional marriage and pro-life causes.

Yesterday, even while the shooting suspect still was being questioned, one WND columnist said there’s enough evidence to begin demanding that pro-homosexual organizations such as the SPLC stand down from their campaign of labeling organizations as “hate groups” simply because they adhere to the biblical perspective of marriage.

Columnist Matt Barber, who is affiliated with the Liberty Counsel Action advocacy organization, told WND he had predicted such violence would be inflicted on Christian organizations if left-leaning groups such as the SPLC continue to spread labels such as “hate group.”

“I want to formally call on the SPLC to retract its reckless hate-group smear of Christian organizations like the Family Research Council,” he said. “This was intended to dehumanize Christian organizations and smear as hate the biblical view of sexual morality.

“I pointed this out months ago in a column I wrote for WND, titled ‘Liberal Violence Rising,‘ where I basically predicted this sort of thing.”

He said the danger is when “less-than-stable, left-wing extremists” share the view of the SPLC and say “a hate group is just like the KKK. I’m a hero if I go and take out a bunch of folks.”

WND Founder and Editor Joseph Farah also weighed in on the attack.

He cited the SPLC, as well as Planned Parenthood, for labeling FRC a hate group.

“Both of these organizations literally did their best to put a target on the back of FRC and other pro-family groups by labeling it as a ‘hate group’ (SPLC) and ‘terrorist or extremist organization’ (Planned Parenthood),” he wrote.

“Do they bear any responsibility for the climate of fear-mongering they helped create? Were they in any way responsible for encouraging this act of violence against a group that stands up for the institution of marriage and against the wanton taking of unborn life? Has either one of these groups expressed any remorse over the hysteria they purposely generated toward Family Research Council?”

He continued: “I can tell you this. Other groups and individuals on those lists – including me and my news organization – are taking this matter very seriously and beefing up security precautions in anticipation of more violence provoked by slanderous and vicious assaults of this kind.

“Yes, I made the same lists. So did WND as an organization. Now we are watching our backs, knowing that Planned Parenthood and SPLC have placed targets on them for every maniac who reads their reports and takes them seriously.”

Barber’s earlier column, from November 2011, said, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.”

Daniel Estulin, author of “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” contends people should care because the idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting “is to create what they themselves call the aristocracy of purpose between European and North American elites on the best way to manage the planet.”

“In other words,” Estulin told WND in an email exchange in which he answered questions, “the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity.”

The issue arises because of plans announced by the organization to hold meetings this week in the United States.

This year’s private meeting is being held at the Westfield Marriott Convention Center in Chantilly, Va. – the same place it was held four years ago when rumors circulated the group had determined Barack Obama would be the Democratic presidential nominee, not Hillary Clinton. Two days after the event, Clinton bowed out of the race.

The group usually holds its annual meeting  in Europe, with past meetings in France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Scotland and Norway. But this week, through June 4, the Bilderberg Group is meeting about 20 miles from the U.S. capital.

Observers point out George H.W. Bush attended in 1985. He became president in 1988. Bill Clinton attended in 1991. He became president a year later. Tony Blair attended in 1993. He became prime minister of England in 1997. Romano Prodi attended in 1999. Later that year he became president of the European Union Commission. In 2004, Sen. John Edwards spoke to the group. He was later anointed the Democratic vice presidential nominee by presidential candidate John Kerry.

Estulin said some people go off the deep end and try to see more than the Bilderberg Group is. That’s not needed, he said, because what’s already there “is and of itself is a pretty significant factor.”

He said what it is is “a vehicle through which private financier oligarchical interests were able to impose their policies on what is nominally sovereign governments.

Estulin will not be in attendance this year, because he is not permitted to travel into the U.S. But he is sending a representative in his place. He believes the meetings are among the most important events to take place in the world every year.

“Bilderberg is not some group of demonic world leaders sitting around a table staring into a crystal ball,” Estulin told WND. “In the U.S., a lot of people mistakenly believe there are secret societies, a very small group controlling the dynamics of the entire world, instead of understanding Bilderberg as a processes-, ideas- and themes-shaping organization.

“Bilderberg is not a bogeyman. But it is a powerful organization. It’s a medium for bringing together financial institutions – the largest, predatory institutions in the world – which acts in ways that are now the worst enemy of society.”

He said at the center of the campaign is the idea that the resources of the world belong not to the people, but to the minority who have power and influence.

“All these people want an empire. They don’t want the people of the world to develop, to prosper, to grow the population. They want us to work for them, where our children and our children’s children work for an elite group, the oligarchy. If people participate in the ideas shaping the world, if a nation is allowed to grow its own food, develop its own natural resources, be truly self-governing, it would end the Bilderbergers’ oligarchy.”

The question-and-answer exchange with Estulin:

WND: What exactly is the Bilderberg Club, and why should Americans care?

Estulin: It’s a meeting of people who represent a certain ideology. Bilderberg Group is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy reality. There are many people who go off the deep end and try to make more of the Bilderberg Group than it actually was and is. It was a very important element of the oligarchical structures of the Cold War period. It is a self-perpetuating system, a virtual spider web of interlocked financial, political, economic and industry interests. And that in and of itself is a pretty significant factor, because what it meant was that it was a vehicle through which private financier oligarchical interests were able to impose their policies on what is nominally sovereign governments.

Bilderberg is a medium of bringing together financial institutions which are the world’s most powerful and most predatory financial interests. And at this time, it is that combination which is the worst enemy of humanity.

Americans should care because the idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting is to create what they themselves call “The Aristocracy of Purpose” between European and North American elites on the best way to manage the  planet. In other words, the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity. And that in itself isn’t healthy.

WND: Is there any significance to the meeting being held in America this year?

Estulin: No. Conspiracy theorists make too much of this. They say Greece became a basket case after Bilderberg met there, so did Spain after their 2010 meeting. The reality is quite different. Greece became a basket case long before Bilderberg came to town, and Spain has been mired in a great depression of their own since about 2007, three years before their meeting in Barcelona. It’s just every four years Bilderberg meets in North America. Why Chantilly again? I don’t know. Perhaps the food is good, because obviously there is a great number of 5-star luxury hotels in the USA where they could have met. My advice to people looking for conspiracies in every nook and corner – stick to the facts and to history.

WND: What kinds of decisions have been made at prior meetings? What are you expecting this year?

Estulin: If you look at the history of Bilderberg meetings, the conclusions reached almost always dealt with the financial aspect of the world politics. The idea is not the creation of “One World Government” as too many individuals would like to believe. Obviously, OWG is a neat little conspiracy theory which makes everything easy. But the world is a far more complex place, and the people involved at the highest levels of powers plan their moves decades ahead. The idea of Bilderberg, and that obviously has a lot to do with the decisions they reach is to create One World Government, Ltd. Corporations, in other words, with a lot more power than any government on the planet, as was explained by George Ball at the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Canada. Key examples of this are the former president of Greece and the current caretaker unelected prime minister of Italy and member of the Bilderberg Group, Mario Monti. Both of them come from Goldman Sachs, as does Mario Draghi, current head of European Central Bank.

Obviously the complete meltdown of the world’s economy will be high on the agenda. But, you have to understand why this is important. The reason?  Population reduction. This has been their goal for a long time.

1. Zero growth, zero progress. Club of Rome (Limits to Growth)
2. CFR’s “Project 1980s” promoting controlled disintegration of world
   economy.
3. Bilderberg’s 1995 “Demand destruction.” How do you destroy demand? By destroying the world’s economy on purpose. By cutting down productivity, through cutting down infrastructure, by cutting inventions, technology, what you are doing is you are forcing a collapse in population. And if you keep people stupid and not too numerous, then the minority can control them. Liebniz’s circles discovered 300 years ago that progress and development is directly proportional to population density. You see, when we build infrastructure, we are actually reorganizing the physical space-time of the biosphere, allowing it to attain higher and higher levels of energy-flux density. Like all feats of human creativity, this is not a project designed for immediate consumption. This is a project designed to extend man’s sense of self far beyond the confines of his sense perceptions and feelings of personal well-being and connect him instead to generations which will continue his legacy long after his generation has left the Earth.

So, if you want to have a future for mankind, you have to grow and progress technologically and scientifically.

“And that has nothing to do with money. What these people want is an empire. And too many people believe that in order to have an empire, you need money. But money is not a determinant of wealth and the economy. Money doesn’t affect the development of the planet. There is a delusionary belief that some intrinsic value is expressed by money. Value is expressed, not as a quantity per se, but only as the relative effects of the increase, or the decrease of the physical potential relative population-density of the individual in a society. The value of money lies not in the individual exchange, but in the functional unity, known as unifying dynamic, of the social process of a nation. You know what affects the development of the planet?

Human mind affects this development. This is how mankind is measured. What separates us from animals is our ability to discover universal physical principles. It allows us to innovate, which subsequently improves the lives of people. Development of mankind, the development of the power of the individual and the nation depends upon scientific developments.

And that’s called immortality, something that people who protest at these
meeting have no inkling about.

WND: There have been calls for protests this year. Is this a new development, and do you think it will change how the meetings are conducted in the future?

Estulin: A protest is when you have 500,000 people standing outside the hotel chanting. When you have 300 people screaming crazy things at the passing
cars with tinted windows, that’s not a positive development which will change anything. Bilderberg calls them “the great unwashed.” And obviously, for the uninitiated, normal folks who see this on TV, the effect is counterproductive. I mean, when people carry signs such as “Black pope is the king of the Bilderberg.”  Or ‘Bilderberg is a one-eyed monster,” etc., there is little positive effect or impact one will draw from this. Also, most of the people who attend the protest rallies have absolutely no idea what Bilderberg is. They don’t understand history and really have no interest in the historical aspects of this organization. What do I mean?

For example, Bilderberg is a continuation of the Venetian black nobility, going back to about the time of the fourth crusade around 1204. In fact, Bilderberg is one of many such organizations that were established in the modern period as a continuation of method of Venice. For example, what’s the whole system of private tax exempt foundations in the USA and Europe? Those are the old Venetian fondi, the private oligarchical funds that are exempted from the kind of taxes that would be paying in the system of sovereign nation states and the funds are deployed to exert control over policy through methods that are not to be direct and obvious to people stuck in a certainty.

To effectively protest, people first of all have to educate themselves in the history of the world and history of Venice and their effect on the modern Bilderberg meetings. Of course, that’s hard, and most people simply prefer to stand on the side of the road screaming profanities at the passing cars.

WND: What is the Bilberberg’s Club overall agenda, if it has one?

Estulin: First of all, let’s get a few things straight. Bilderberg isn’t a secret society. It is not an evil, all-seeing eye or a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. There is no conspiracy even though a lot of people with their infantile fantasies see it as such. No group of people, and I don’t care how powerful they are, sit around the table in dark room, holding hands, staring at a crystal ball, planning the world’s future. These are organizations that have operational missions. These are not the seats of power. These are not the organizations that actually meet and deliberate on major policy decisions, issues of war and peace, questions of genocide. These are the conveyor belts. That’s why it’s a mistake to think that somehow or other you can
pinpoint the Bilderbergers, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the TC (Trilateral Commission), Le Circle … these organizations as the hub of oligarchical power. When you have organizations that have meeting dates, rosters of members, and now in the more modern period have websites and twitters, things like that. The oligarchical principal works on [a] different and higher level, and so they create a multiplicity of front organizations whose job is to radiate out the idea that already has been pre-determined at a much higher and much more exclusive level. These organizations play a role, but they are not at the top of the pyramid by a long shot.”

WND: Do you think opposition to these meetings is growing, and if so, why do you think that is?

Estulin: The opposition is a top down phenomenon not a grass roots movement. I mean, you have the intellectuals, the professionals, the bankers themselves at a mid level, etc., who are beginning to understand that the world is a very different place from what we have been told. We need quality opposition but quantity. Crazies dressed in rags screaming at officials will only deter the masses from joining the movement.

WND: What can people opposed to the group do, seeing as how it is composed of the most powerful people in the world?

Estulin: Once again, I want to stress that these are not the most powerful people in the world. Most powerful people don’t attend Bilderberg meeting. Just look at the list of attendees. CEOs of companies, members of European Parliament, European Commissioners, journalists. These are mid level cogs of the system, not the makers of history. The true power rests with people who are not listed on Google. For example, one of the most powerful families in the world are the Friscobaldies, the old Venetian nobles. Their wealth is measures in trillion of dollars. I spent 3.5 years researching these families at the National Library in Florence poring over 13th-, 14th-century notary books, counting the acres of land, their properties over the centuries. These are the true seats of power and believe me, they do not attend Bilderberg.”

WND: In the world where economic power is transitioning to Asia, is the group as powerful as it once was?

Estulin: “Not only Asia. Russia is a big problem because unless you can succeed in destroying Russia and China you will not succeed in destroying [the] nation state system. And if you get an alliance between the U.S., Russia, China and India around the principles of national sovereignty, then you could deliver a death blow to this whole system of oligarchism once and for all. Because that’s what Bilderberg is: [an] oligarchical system of control based on the old Venetian system.

From the standpoint of Bilderberg being any kind of a voice of authority for an oligarchical system, if you kill the oligarchical system off, then Bilderberg is absolutely useless. [End of interview]

The meetings are private, invitation-only for about 150 individuals from the worlds of politics, business, finance, energy, media and nobility. No resolutions are voted on, no outsiders at the meetings, no minutes are taken, not statements issued.

Estulin has cited David Rockefeller’s own admission. Rockefeller, a Bilderberg member, wrote: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

And in 2009, Bilderberg Chairman Etienne Davignon boasted that the Euro single currency was actually a recommendation of the Bilderberg group.

According to a video posted by Campus Reform Online, Donald Brown, a professor of Environmental Ethnics, Science and Law at Penn State, stated, “We should encourage a conversation whether this is some kind of new crime against humanity.”

He continued: “It’s really evil stuff.”

The comments took place at a panel discussion titled “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change” at the Penn State campus April 30. Penn State was at the center of the “Climategate” scandal in which hacked emails indicated scientific data was being manipulated amid a scheme to marginalize skeptics.

Oliver Darcy, a regional field coordinator for the Leadership Institute, told WND in an exclusive interview, “They had a host of panelists who talked about how skeptics of climate change are committing crimes against humanity for stalling government actions to curb global warming.”

Penn State Professor Michael Mann, who was accused of deleting evidence to hinder the Climategate investigation, also was present at the panel discussion.

“There’s the side of science, and then there’s the other side which manufactures their own science; they manufacture their own facts,” Mann said. “It almost doesn’t matter anymore which facts are real facts and which facts are fake facts.”

Michael Mann

Mann was responsible for the creation of the “hockey stick graph” used by Al Gore in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” to argue for a recent spike in average temperature caused by industrialization.

The hacked Climategate emails indicated the graph was created by a “trick” used to force the data into a pattern of steadily increasing temperatures.

Other panelists used their time to attack conservatives in the media and Fox News.

Graduate student Peter Buckland commented, “You can watch Fox News all over campus here if you want to … if you watch Fox News, you are much more likely to believe factually wrong things.”

Rick Schuhman of Penn State suggested that radio host Rush Limbaugh disagrees with Gore purely out of greed or to be disagreeable.

“Gore can say the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, and Rush Limbaugh would say ‘he is a liar,’” he said.

Don Brown

Mann commented to laughter, “As was alluded to earlier, you can find a whole cable network that is willing to throw fake facts about climate change at you and arm you with those fake facts.”

Darcy told WND the panel was “light on science and long on invective.”

“Most universities would be on the defensive after their own professors were accused of academic fraud,” he said. “Instead, PSU doubled down with a panel that didn’t seem to talk about how to stop climate change but how to shut down conservatives who even question global warming alarmism. It was an ugly exercise in self-congratulation and insults.”

See the exchange:

Get the truth about global warming, from “The Greatest Hoax: How the global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” by Sen. James Inhofe and “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America and “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam” by Brian Sussman.